Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-15
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sun, 06 February 2011 15:56 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240233A6935; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 07:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJEa8JLD08kJ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 07:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC933A6900; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 07:56:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so4012542wyf.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 07:56:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:content-language:thread-index; bh=hC2IjHEJSRKPcn0ZD5e2f+2uQi6Q5YR3Prv1DYCwLEg=; b=JOwOD5ZIklEqv0eYc46UbP8J1naJ+b3NxTuEU8e7/cPcR8bnEzlxzZ5xPCCp97exyz yrHYSr8po2OX06YtQef7OB7+f7NgLhBp6JekAb6SDba6bRqi0Cp/MiH50CJmN1Ngp0xI B711KrnjVCJhmpaIGiMrGTP7F9DOB7vHIWFf4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :content-language:thread-index; b=JHQRcWLb38MqYUqhbmDgYJ6pXOhCT0tdrus8e+Osx5ql96rZKtN3XH3ticYcPqOwXM K+JGSiMHkqhComNcFGpzk6kTOLMD/qtfrC07gIPGDl90S5Zm7TjqDzoPDk1FdkRzBvTq bJIGCGxUKZNULGWzlRCRFhieG4YHymp0uC4TU=
Received: by 10.216.187.82 with SMTP id x60mr1523162wem.9.1297007763565; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 07:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([109.67.25.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2sm1625560weh.36.2011.02.06.07.55.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 06 Feb 2011 07:56:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Shinta Sugimoto' <shinta@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
References: <4d47c4d7.26ead80a.186e.4528@mx.google.com> <4D4EA234.3070301@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4D4EA234.3070301@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:51:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4d4ec491.027bd80a.1292.ffff83b6@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcvGAeDc3C4absZ0S0C98nYz0OTBMQAE7wBg
Cc: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-15
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:56:04 -0000
Hi Shinta, I am OK with all your proposals Thanks Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Shinta Sugimoto [mailto:shinta@sfc.wide.ad.jp] > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:29 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api.all@tools.ietf.org; gen- > art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list' > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api- > 15 > > Dear Roni, > > Thank you very much for your review. Please find my answers inline. > > (11/02/01 17:27), Roni Even wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-15 > > > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > > > Review Date:2011-2-1 > > > > IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-10 > > > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational > RFC. > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > 1.In section 8.2 the path exploration parameters are different from > RFC > > 5534, missing keep alive interval. Why the difference. > > You are right. Keepalive Interval is missing in the parameter set that > we defined in our draft. We did not put in the draft as we thought that > the value will be determined according to the recommendation given in > RFC5534 (i.e., the interval should be set one-half to one-third of the > Keepalive Timeout value), but I agreed that we should make it explicit > in our draft. > > I suggest to make the following changes in Section 8.2: > > 1) change the structure (shim_pathexplore{}) as follows: > > struct shim_pathexplore { > uint16_t pe_probenum; /* # of initial probes */ > uint16_t pe_keepaliveto; /* Keepalive Timeout */ > uint16_t pe_keepaliveint; /* Keepalive Interval */ > uint16_t pe_initprobeto; /* Initial Probe Timeout */ > uint32_t pe_reserved; /* reserved */ > }; > > 2) Add pe_keepaliveint and its description as below. > > pe_keepaliveint > Indicates interval of REAP keepalive messages in seconds to be > sent by > the host when there is no outbound traffic to the peer host. The value > shall be set according to the recommendation given in [RFC5534]. > > Does this sound reasonable to you? > > > 2.In section 11.1 you discuss conflict resolution for SHIM6, is this > > also relevant for HIP or is it a specific SHIM6 problem. This also > > relates to the issue of conflict resolution discussed in the security > > section. > > No, the issue addressed in Section 11.1 is not relevant to HIP. It is > an > issue specific to SHIM6. Note that the concept of context forking is > not > defined in the HIP RFC. As for the texts in Section 14 (Security > Considerations), the texts in Section 14.1.1 apply to HIP and SHIM6. > When there is no indication of specific protocol name (i.e., HIP or > SHIM6), a term shim sub-layer refers to both HIP and SHIM6. This is an > assumption in this document. > > > 3.The last sentence in appendix A "Any solution is needed to overcome > > the problem mentioned above" is not clear, does it mean that there is > no > > solution to the context forking problem. Section 11.1 claims that > using > > the procedure described it addresses this issue, am I missing > something. > > No, the issue discussed in Appendix A cannot be solved by the solution > (or I had better say recommendation) explained in section 11.1. They > are > simply different issues. With regard to the issue described in Appendix > A, there is no solution as far as I know. To avoid the confusion, I > suggest to change the last sentence of Appendix A as follows: "It is > for > further study how to solve the issue described above." Does this make > sense? > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > 1.In 8.2 for pe_keepaliveto, what are the units, I assume it is > seconds. > > Yes, you are right. Let us update the text to make it clear. > > > 2.In section 7 section paragraph "in which one ore" should be "in > which > > one or" > > OK, thanks. Let us correct the typo. > > Again, thank you very much for your review! > > Regards, > Shinta
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shim6-m… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shi… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shi… Shinta Sugimoto