[dtn] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 03 February 2020 11:08 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202F41200B6; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 03:08:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org, Fred Templin <fred.l.templin@boeing.com>, dtn-chairs@ietf.org, fred.l.templin@boeing.com, dtn@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.116.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <158072811912.28544.4475168797987237276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 03:08:39 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/wJnz3bztwkwc8Yo3MgP9wpbHANw>
Subject: [dtn] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 11:08:39 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I looked up RFC 4838 and there is a section on congestion control, however it only says: "Congestion control is an ongoing research topic." Unfortunately this document also doesn't give any further advise about congestion control but as a PS it really should. I understand that the bundle protocol is basically an application layer protocol on top of a transport that should care about congestion control, however, the document doesn't talk much about anything related to that underlying protocol. It would be important to specify requirements for the underlying transport protocol, indicating that is must be congestion controlled or rate limited (see RFC8085 as a reference for rate limiting of (uni-direction) UDP-based protocols). Further this sentence in Sec 5.1 needs more clarification: “For this reason, the generation of status reports MUST be disabled by default and enabled only when the risk of excessive network traffic is deemed acceptable.” It is not clear when it makes sense to enable and if enables one should probably also implement some filtering and rate limiting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) One general comment on the style of the document: I found it actually quite hard to read. I think it would help to add some overview text from time to time instead of going into all the details right away. E.g. maybe provide some kind of short summary/overview at the beginning of section 5 like the “Life cycle of a bundle“. In contrast I think you could cut down the section on concepts a bit (move some the implementation related notes to the appendix). Further, compared to the previous RFC, now that CBOR is used the text because actually more abstract. I think it would actually help to put CDDL fragment in body of document. 2) Sec 4.1.3 and 4.1.4: Maybe use normative language here for all or most of the musts, e.g. s/then all status report request flag values must be zero/then all status report request flag values MUST be zero/ 3) Quick question on Sec 4.2.2: “Version number SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item.” The document says that this version is not backward compatible. Is the version number the only field that can be used to identify the bundle protocol?
- [dtn] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on… Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on… Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on… Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)