[Gen-art] [gen-art] review: draft-ietf-mptcp-architecture-04
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 14 January 2011 21:12 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 BBD333A6C91 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:12:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 WwcFe5Uyiuj9 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (hgblob.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F833A6C89 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1BE3228BC7; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-51-169.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 548F33228021; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D30BCCA.4000109@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:14:50 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-mptcp-architecture.all@tools.ietf.org, philip.eardley@bt.com
Subject: [Gen-art] [gen-art] review: draft-ietf-mptcp-architecture-04
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: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:12:28 -0000
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-mptcp-architecture-04 Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP Development Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 14-Jan-2011 IETF LC End Date: Closed IESG Telechat date: 20-Jan-2011 Summary: This document is almost ready for publicaiton as an Informational RFC> The items below should be evaluated before publication. Major issues: A new requirement, "break-before-make" is added in the security design decisions section (section 5.8). Even if this is merely a desirable behavior, it should be described in the behaviors before being referenced in the design decisions. Minor issues: The introduction could b e clearer about the assumptions regarding unused resources. As written, it gives the reader that there are unused resources scattered around the Internet waiting to be used if we were only more clever. While this is arguably true for the direct link to multi-homed hosts, and may be true within sites or for the case of multiple links between a site and its ISPs, this is rarely true for links within and between ISPs. ISPs engineer traffic loading on links to balance cost and utilization. Conversely, if the goal really is to change the traffic distribution in the Internet core and to over-ride operator traffic engineering, then we have a serious disconnect of goals, and operators will be very unhappy once they realize it. Better clarity indicating that we are not trying to do that would help. (Picking access addresses is, as far as I cen tell, legitimately the users purview. Controlling the path within the ISPs between such addresses is not, I think, the users purview.) Such a change would also bring the introduction more in line with what the proposals actually do. I would expect some mention of latency in the goals in section 2.1. Is the design constrained to preserve latency behavior? There seems to be an implicit requirement from the buffering description (section 5.3) to allow either side of the communication to select which connections are to be actively used. Is this a goal or requirement? Shold it be stated somewhere? If not, should the text in section 5.3 about selecting whcih connections are used be tuned somewhat? Nits/editorial comments:
- [Gen-art] [gen-art] review: draft-ietf-mptcp-arch… Joel M. Halpern