Re: [Gen-art] Genart Telechat review draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 15 December 2015 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AFE1A882E; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:14:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fx-EnfOCTjVw; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64471A8712; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:14:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1450181645; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=nKUMlC7qUiC2jI9w9y09g5VR+atqIOqaY0w+3+PxD7c=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=VirDxqfht+xcH87syEuS0g9jggMJSB3WVzCXFvULkYnFUn3W3Ea4wruQTBsGw183ZUwgN+ RJOUgT5TWNzme1+za1FrizKxNscSMWTFNO9gMqct40CSE0vlM5PZ09Ioi4cJYq97gEqnFz B0Y+0eYrVpQ0tU9ef2oTAUCq/RJqCq4=;
Received: from [10.229.139.67] ((unknown) [85.255.234.60]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VnAEDABSXFu-@waldorf.isode.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:14:04 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS PIPELINING
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <566FF737.40103@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:23:39 +0000
Message-Id: <D76BEC12-DCAC-4155-8EB2-7CA0BE06103E@isode.com>
References: <56562C04.2060308@nostrum.com> <566FF737.40103@isode.com>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics.all@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jHOgGZSd2TwOzfBmF8c6AqBE03c>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart Telechat review draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Dec 2015 12:14:07 -0000

I deleted an incorrect recipient in my original review. Sorry about that.

> On 15 Dec 2015, at 11:19, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19
> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
> Review Date: 2015-12-15
> IETF LC End Date:
> IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17
> 
> 
> 
> Summary: Nearly ready for publication as Proposed Standard
> 
> I think this document has a list of issues, but they should be easy to fix:
> 
> In Section 5.3:
> 
> The dMFlags field described above is a 64 bit field that allows
>   initiator nodes to identify up to 62 items of base information to
>   request in a request message (the first and last flags being
>   reserved).
> 
> But the IANA registration section uses flags 1 and doesn't seem to
> reserve the highest bit either. If this text is now wrong, it should be
> deleted. If the IANA section is wrong, please fix it. If I am wrong,
> please tell me :-).
> 
> In Section 5.3:
> 
> SOFTWARE_VERSION: A single value element containing a US-ASCII
>      string that identifies the manufacture, model, operating system
>      information and the version of the software.  Given that there are
>      very large number of peers in some networks, and no peer is likely
>      to know all other peer’s software, this information may be very
>      useful to help determine if the cause of certain groups of
>      misbehaving peers is related to specific software versions.  While
>      the format is peer-defined, a suggested format is as follows:
>      "ApplicationProductToken (Platform; OS-or-CPU) VendorProductToken
>      (VendorComment)".  For example: "MyReloadApp/1.0 (Unix; Linux
>      x86_64) libreload-java/0.7.0 (Stonyfish Inc.)".  The string is a
>      C-style string, and MUST be delimited by "\0".
> 
> Did you mean "terminated"? I don't see what can be delimited, as this
> implies presence of multiple fields.
> 
>      "\0" MUST NOT be
>      included in the string itself to prevent confusion with the
>      delimiter.
> 
> 
> 
> EWMA_BYTES_SENT (32 bits): A single value element containing an
>      unsigned 32-bit integer representing an exponential weighted
>      average of bytes sent per second by this peer. sent = alpha x
>      sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent where sent_present represents
>      the bytes sent per second since the last calculation and sent
>      represents the last calculation of bytes sent per second.  A
>      suitable value for alpha is 0.8.  This value is calculated every
>      five seconds.
> 
> 
> I don't understand the formula. What is "x"?
> Should the formula be on its own line for ease of understanding?
> 
> BATTERY_STATUS
> 
> This flag doesn't seem to be defined in a useful fashion. You need to at
> least provide some guidance here to insure interoperability.
> 
> In Sections 9.3-9.5: is RFC-AAAA this document or RFC 6940 (or something
> else)?
> 
> Thank you,
> Alexey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art