[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-rserpool-*
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 27 September 2005 11:45 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKDuG-0000aN-6M; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:45:56 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKDuE-0000aD-Ug for gen-art@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:45:54 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01432 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EKE1S-0002Mc-30 for gen-art@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:53:24 -0400
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597BE258067; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:45:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22784-10; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:45:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DC825807F; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:45:09 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:45:07 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Message-ID: <E5F6AB702353C7016356251B@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87
Cc: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Subject: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-rserpool-*
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1737007045=="
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Cover note (not part of the review): I have not reviewed these documents for detailed nits; I do not consider that a good use of my time. Neither did I forward this to the WG chairs directly, since I regard it as the AD's business to deal with the problem - if the IESG decides that these documents are better published anyway, disregarding my advice, it's better if this review is published quietly. This is the most negative review I've done so far. Sorry, John. ----------------------------------------------------------- Document: draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-10 draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-10 draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-05 Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand Summary: Should be killed, not improved. These documents are, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed, and should not just be DISCUSSed, they should be rejected, and the WG shut down. The flaws include: - No security architecture - No identity architecture to base security on - No client-locates-server architecture - No monitoring architecture - No transaction support architecture Specific questions that are not answered by the architecture: - How do the front-end servers get to agreement on which processing servers to put load onto? Is there feedback from the servers to the front-ends, apart from "up/down" indications? - How do they handle state? - Does the model support transactions? Any other integrity model? - Are sessions sticky by default - so that second requests from the same client are *normally* sent to the same server, or does load-balancing happen per-request? - Is the session mode from the users to the frontends the same as from the frontends to the servers? Always? Some of the time? - What is the model for identity exchange between the servers, between the front-ends and between servers and front-ends? Do the users engage in any kind of identity exchange with the servers at all, or do they just deal with an "anonymous blob"? - What is the model for a front-end going down, as seen from the users? How do they figure out which front-end to switch to? Formalisms that should IMHO prevent publication: - The -arch draft is normatively dependent on the ENRP and ASAP protocols. In fact, I'd claim that the architecture alone is incomprehensible; you need the details of the protocols. Omitting them from the references list is a fatal error. - The -comp document is trying to answer the question of "why can't you just use protocol X". As such, it's a shooting gallery for alternative candidates. It does not answer the question of "in which cases do you need rserpool". Again, this has a normative dependency on the protocols. - The -threat document is simply very badly done. But again, it can't even be evaluated without the protocols, including the parts of the protocols (like identity handling) that aren't specified in the current protocol documents. So this too is normatively dependent on the protocols. Formalist advice: Send them back to the working group and ask for them to be re-forwarded when the protocols are ready. Operational advice: Disband the working group, and tell them to ask for publication of the protocols as Experimental.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-rserpool-* Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-rserpool-* john.loughney