[dtn-interest] Re: [IRSG] POLL: draft-irtf-dtnrg-arch-07 -- DUE JAN 9

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks  for the prompt response Michael!

I'll hassle the authors on those points for an -09
version:-)

Cheers,
Stephen.

Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think that this document is now ready to go forward.
> 
> Two comments:
> 
> * I'm glad to see that the document now explicitly states
>   that reports such as "Report When Bundle Deleted" are
>   meant for diagnostic purposes. I'm not saying that this
>   is an absolute necessity, but I think it would be
>   appropriate to also mention that the diagnostic reports
>   and delivery options should be used with care, as they
>   can open the door for attacks (e.g. DoS,   if e.g. a
>   custody is supposed to receive deletion reports
>   from bundles that were multicast)
> 
> * a nit: on page 18, in the sentence:
> 
> While G is transmitting a large bundle to S1, a reliable transport layer
> protocol below the bundle layer at each indicates the transmission has
> terminated, but that half the transfer has completed successfully.
> 
> it seems that there is missing something after "at each", like "hop", or
> "side".. (or there isn't, and it's just my lack of English skills -
> could be?)
> 
> Good job!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 12:43, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The DTN architecture document has been updated [1] as a
>> result of the recent IRSG poll comments.
>>
>> Can the people who commented on this please check that the
>> new version resolves their comments, say before Jan 9th?
>> (That's the set of folks on the To: list of this message.)
>>
>> Having done a quick check, the highlights of the diffs [2] vs.
>> the comments that I believe are holding the document are:
>>
>> - Michael Welzl had concerns about reporting - those features
>> are now called out as optional and its explained how they are
>> for diagnostic purposes (I note in passing that they were
>> found to be useful for this during the interop in San Diego!)
>>
>> - Thomas Henderson had some problems with the EID term (and
>> terminology in general). There were some editorial changes
>> made, and it was pointed out that there is a terminology
>> section in the bundle specification draft [3], (which will
>> be starting its poll real soon now, btw).
>>
>> Let me know if there're others that I missed (I believe Mark
>> Allman's non-overlapping comments were not "holding" ones,
>> since he said that himself:-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stephen.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-arch-08.txt
>> [2] 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-dtnrg-arch-08.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-dtnrg-arch-07.txt
>> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-08.txt
> 
>