[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review for draft-cardenas-dff-014

Hi,

As stated in the review made on a previous version of the document, from my point of view this document is ready. All my questions and concerns were answered with the exception of issue #6 mentioned below. It would be nice to have this issue answered as well, however this is a clarification non-blocking issue. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:52 PM
> To: Ulrich Herberg; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: scespedes@icesi.edu.co; Alvaro Cardenas; m.dow@freescale.com; Ralph
> Droms (rdroms); smartnetpro-iwao_std@ml.css.fujitsu.com; Ted Lemon
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09
> 
> Hi Ulrich,
> 
> I apologize for the late response but travel and holidays intervened.
> 
> The updated version answers all my concerns, and thank you for
> addressing these and for the improved specification.
> 
> I have only one clarification question to ask, related to your answers:
> 
> > >6. In section 9.2 - what happened if when adding a new Processed
> > >Tuple based on a new incoming packet the routing discovers that the
> > >P_seq_number is already in used for another entry in the list. This
> > >can happen, as the sequence numbers are unique per routers, and
> > >current packets may originate from different routers? Is this not a
> problem?
> > Why?
> >
> > That would not be a problem as for each packet, existing tuples are
> > searched using *both*
> > +  P_orig_address = the Originator Address of the current Packet,
> >           AND;
> >        +  P_seq_number = the sequence number of the current Packet.
> >
> >
> > So a tuple with same P_seq_number but different P_orig_address would
> > not be returned
> 
> Is the algorithm clarified some place in the specification, and I could
> not find it? If such explanation existed it would have answered my
> concern from start, maybe I missed it. If this is not clearly stated,
> maybe adding such an explanation would be useful.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:uherberg@us.fujitsu.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:29 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); gen-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); smartnetpro-iwao_std@ml.css.fujitsu.com;
> > m.dow@freescale.com; scespedes@icesi.edu.co; Alvaro Cardenas; Ted
> > Lemon
> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > thank you very much for your review. I tried to address your comments,
> > and have submitted a new revision just now:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cardenas-dff-10
> > See below:
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art