[Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577C921F8D9C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMgC3jiEWTXv for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A4C21F8D02 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAP0QA1GHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABFgmu7ZxZzgiABAQMSKD8SARUHDhRCJgEEDg0ah20BC6FYjGqQCo0Vg0lhA5cphHGKO4J3giQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,541,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="344243690"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2013 09:20:54 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2013 09:17:34 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:18:52 -0500
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09
Thread-Index: Ac4OrAr/1G/r/YAuSwWVKubLcvcOqA==
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:18:52 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA08ED95@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "scespedes@icesi.edu.co" <scespedes@icesi.edu.co>, "m.dow@freescale.com" <m.dow@freescale.com>, "alvaro.cardenas-mora@us.fujitsu.com" <alvaro.cardenas-mora@us.fujitsu.com>, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, "smartnetpro-iwao_std@ml.css.fujitsu.com" <smartnetpro-iwao_std@ml.css.fujitsu.com>, "ulrich.herberg@us.fujitsu.com" <ulrich.herberg@us.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:18:34 -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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-cardenas-dff-09
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2/19/2013
IETF LC End Date: 2/24/2013
IESG Telechat date: 2/28/2013

Summary: I have several questions and comments related to this document. Some of them may be the result of my lack of familiarity with this technology, some other may require clarifications or modifications in the document. Until the issues and questions noted below are addressed I cannot assess if this document is ready. 

Major issues:

1. Section 1 includes a note that 'this specification is intended for experimentation'. When such statements are made I believe the authors should include also some information about what kind of information they expect to receive from the experiments, where (in what types and sizes of networks) the experiments should be conducted, what are the criteria to consider the experiments successful.

2. In "mesh-under" mode both EUI-64 link layer addresses and 16-bit short addresses can be used. First question - can these be mixed in the same DFF domain? Second - the 16-bit short addresses are unique only within the same PAN. This means that a DFF domain cannot spin over more than one PAN. Am I correct or do I miss something? These should be articulated in the Applicability statement. 

3. Are the protocol parameters defined in Section 8 configurable? Do they need to be kept in non-volatile memory to survive a power failure event? - there is no mention about this in the document. 

4. Same question for the list of bidirectional neighbors - should they be stored in non-volatile memory, or are they completely rebuilt at (re)-boot?  

5. Same question for the information sets used by DFF described in Section 6 - should they be stored in non-volatile memory, or are they completely rebuilt at (re)-boot? 

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? 

7. Section 14 - header formats - don't we need a version field? If not, why? 

8. Security Considerations section 16.3.2 - should not Sequence Number Tampering be added to the Packet Header Modifications attacks? 

Minor issues:

1. The applicability statement says that the protocol ' Assumes that the underlying link layer provides means to detect if a Packet has been successfully delivered to the Next Hop or not', ' Is designed for networks with little traffic in terms of numbers of Packets per second', and 'Is used for unicast transmissions only'. These are limitations important enough to be mentioned in the Abstract and Introduction section. 

2. Section 15 - am I right that DFF domains running in "route-over" MoP and "mesh-under" MoP never mix, so if they happen to be overlaying or adjoining one near the other they should be considered as distinct domains? If this is correct, I suggest to be explicit about this. 


Nits/editorial comments:

1. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 the delimitors between the terms and their explanations are inconsistent (colons for some, dashes for other)