Re: [dtn] working group last call on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 20 January 2017 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55541294DF for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:27:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhaQBumamwSB for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79E6A1294DD for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v0KMRH4T064199; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:27:17 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.172]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v0KMRGJR064195 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:27:16 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.238.222) by XCH15-06-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.239.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:27:15 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:27:15 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: dtn <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] working group last call on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis
Thread-Index: AQHSaEsnO5SnM3vNk0uJNfCr2415vaFCBSXA
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 22:27:15 +0000
Message-ID: <33dcf870891646fcb895f85f9449d0b6@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <44B4919D-4283-4FDD-91E5-1EE5288D50AC@viagenie.ca> <E2450792-7FEE-4ECE-902E-1F7BDBF42BBD@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <E2450792-7FEE-4ECE-902E-1F7BDBF42BBD@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/DD1xcrMy9lvhv3ju74z0dVShPVo>
Subject: Re: [dtn] working group last call on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 22:27:19 -0000

Hi, here are my review comments for draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis:

Fred Templin
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

---

1) Abstract, instead of "This Internet Draft", say: "This document" so that the text can carry
     forward into RFC publication.
2) Page 4, figure 1 is split between two pages. Make it fit onto a single page.
3) Page 4, figure 1, "Trans1" and "Trans3" are unexplained. Are they the same as "T1/T3"?
     Why not just call them "T1" and "T3"?
4) Page 6, "Partial payload" is it the case that payload fragmentation is limited to 2-fragment
     fragmentation, or can it be N-fragment? The definition makes it appear that only 2-fragment
    fragmentation is supported.
5) Page 6, figure 2 is split between two pages. Make it fit onto a single page.
6) Section 3.2, page 14, the sentence: "However, in some environments there may be
    segments of the end-to-end path for which no reliable convergence-layer protocol
    is available; in such environments the use of reliable convergence-layer protocols
    wherever possible can reduce the incidence of data loss." - this seems to be saying
    two contradictory things. It basically seems says: "when no reliable convergence-layer
    protocol is available, use a reliable convergence-layer protocol" which is an
    oxymoron - perhaps a misunderstanding?
7) Section 4.1.5.1, page 18, should there be an informative reference for "dtn:" and "ipn:"?
8) Section 4.2.2, page 22, "Total Application Data Unit Length" only appears if the bundle is
    a fragment. But, does it mean that only "two-fragment" fragmented bundles are possible?
9) Section 4.3.4, page 25, why does it need to include both a hop limit and hop count? Isn't
    it sufficient to just have a hop limit that decrements to 0?
10) Section 5.8, page 32, why is only "2-fragment" fragmentation supported? Why not
    "N-fragment"?
11) Section 6.1.2, figure 6, page 42, change: "No known route destination from here."
    to: "No known route to destination from here."