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

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

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