[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt
Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 30 December 2005 18:01 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EsOZV-0003dX-MD; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:01:45 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EsOZT-0003dO-Ti for gen-art@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:01:44 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21319 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:00:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk ([81.187.81.51] helo=smtp.aaisp.net.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EsOdy-0003Y1-4Z for gen-art@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:06:22 -0500
Received: from 247.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.254.247] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43) id 1EsOZA-0002m8-SY; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:01:25 +0000
Message-ID: <43B57671.6050609@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:03:29 +0000
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd3fc8e909678b38737fc606dec187f0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, bberry@cisco.com, hholgate@cisco.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Document: draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt Intended Status: Informational (Individual submission via RFC Editor) Shepherding AD: Mark Townsley Review Trigger: IESG Telechat 5 January 2006 Summary: In my opinion this proposal is technically unsound and should not be published in its current form. At the very least Section 5 has to be formulated differently (it is a serious abuse of PPP), the credit mechanism would need to be much better specified to demonstrate that it is robust and that interoperable implementations could be made, and, in my opinion, the value of the complex link quality mechanisms in likely deployment scenarios is questionable. I note that the PPPEXT wg review has also noted some serious concerns about the general principles of this proposal. I haven't repeated their views about layer violations and misunderstanding about the purpose of PPPoE - there are quite enough other problems. Even were it to be published I am unclear why this document should be Informational. It is documenting a proposed extension to a standard (although, if the authors wished, it could have made use of the existing Vendor-specific tag and then it would legitimately have been an Informational document on that front - the new message types are another matter) and as such ought to be aiming for PS. Assuming this document is approved, it needs an IANA considerations section. I think that it effectively creates two registries for PPPoE discovery message ids and discovery option tags which (AFAICS) weren't setup by RFC2516 although the TAG registry is implicit in the wording of RFC2516. Review: System overview diagram/description: PPPoE is supposed to connect a host to an Access Concentrator, not to link two Access Concentrators. The term Host Radio is probably misleading. I am not clear if this is all just an oversize typo or a fundamental misunderstanding. The scenario in which PPPoE is typically used normally envisages hosts tied to an access network via a single link. It is not clear that the routing protocol would have any alternatives other than the PPPoE link in most circumstances, so that the only link indication needed is link up/link down. The proposed metric system therfore seems to be overkill in most realistic situations. Also it is not made clear how the radio related information is transferred to the PPPoE endpoints or whether the 'host radio' nodes are intended to intercept the relevant packets and fill in the required info (and then fix up the checksum - hmm!). If it were used, the interactions between the rate of change of radio bandwidth (especially in cellular cases) and the time constants in routing protocols needs to be considered. The authors should take a look at draft-iab-link-indications-04.txt. ss4.3-4.5: If these packets are needed, I think it would make more sense to send them as a new PPP sub-protocol on the established session rather than overloading the discovery packets. The addressing of these packets needs to be made explicit if not. s4.5: PPP already has a link quality report sub-protocol (0xc025) - do we need another one? Note if the radio is 'receive only' the link is no good for IP! Section 5: There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The example packet given in RFC2516 seems to have been taken as meaning that *all* session stage packets will be using the LCP PPP protocol type (0xC021). This is clearly not the case - for example, plain vanilla user IPv4 packets will use protocol 0x0021 and there could be any number of different protcols going across the link. The proposal to piggyback credit tags onto these packets in the manner proposed is therefore broken - and a serious abuse of the PPP structure. A fix defining a new PPP protocol number would be entirely possible, but that is another matter. Section 6/7: I haven't analysed the credit flow mechanism in s6 in detail but it doesn't seem to take into account that Ethernet is not a reliable medium. Section 7 *does* seem to acknowledge this but the interaction between the inband and out-of-band credits during a session is far from clear - I don't think I could build interoperable implementations as it stands. Also, some idea of default timeout values needs to be specified. The document has no IANA considerations section. It assigns three new (pseudo-)discovery message types and three new 'TAG' numbers that fit into the space used for tags defined in RFC2516. These message ids and tags are currently internal to RFC2516 and so have no registries. Since RFC2516 allows new tags to be defined there presumably ought to be an IANA registry for these tags but it wasn't setup at the time. RFC2516 did not originally envision new discovery messages. I assume that there ought be to be expert review of the assignment by analogy with the other PPP registries. Editorial: The boilerplate is out of date (see idnits output). The figures need titles and bit position indicators. Also the rules say that figures are optional add-ons to words - s9 needs to specify the contents of the tags in words as well. The document needs a spell check. Running idnits: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate... * Found RFC 3978 Section 5.5 boilerplate (on line 30), which is fine, but *also* found RFC 2026 Section 10.4C paragraph 4 boilerplate on line 701. It should be removed. * The document claims conformance with section 10 of RFC 2026, but uses some RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate. As RFC 3978/3979 replaces section 10 of RFC 2026, you should not claim conformance with it if you have changed to using RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate. * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78. * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ( - It does however have an RFC 2026 Section 10.4(A) Disclaimer.) * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. * The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ( - It does however have an RFC 2026 Section 10.4(B) IPR Disclosure Invitation.) * The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668." * There are 243 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 6 characters in excess of 72. * There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: - It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 20 pages Miscellaneous warnings: None. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppoe-cr… Elwyn Davies
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-… James Carlson
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… Elwyn Davies
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… James Carlson
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… Elwyn Davies
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… James Carlson
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… Elwyn Davies
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppo… James Carlson
- Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-… James Carlson