Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-pim-port-09.txt

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Mon, 07 November 2011 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 495C521F8A91 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:41:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMJxi35vtz2x for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812BF21F8A62 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id pA7NfKRH007681; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:41:22 -0600
Received: from [142.133.10.44] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:41:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4EB86C1C.4020003@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:39:08 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stig Venaas <svenaas@cisco.com>
References: <4EB07E42.4020800@ericsson.com> <4EB2DD4F.3000309@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EB2DD4F.3000309@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-port.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-port.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-pim-port-09.txt
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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:41:24 -0000

Hi Stig,

On 11/03/2011 02:28 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Thanks for the review, see below.
>
> On 11/1/2011 4:18 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>>
>> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
>> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-pim-port-09.txt
>> Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
>> Review Date: 2011/11/01
>> IESG Telechat date: 2011/11/03
>>
>> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an
>> Experimental RFC but I have a few comments.
>>
>> Minor
>> =====
>>
>> Section 3.1
>>
>> * From my reading of the document, it is not clear whether we can have a
>> node advertise multiple capability options of the same transport
>> protocol (say PIM-over-TCP-Capable) in the same message. e.g. A dual
>> stack node might want to advertise its capability to do both IPv4 and
>> IPv6. Is this possible? If so, how?
>
> For PIM we generally (not just PORT) use Hello Options in IPv4 PIM
> Hello's for IPv4 capabilities and Hello Options in IPv6 PIM Hello's
> for IPv6 capabilities. The two are completely separate.
>
> If a router supports PORT for both IPv4 and IPv6, it will send one
> option in the IPv4 Hello, and another in the IPv6 Hello.
>
> In  section 4 it says:
>
>      The decisions whether to use PORT, which transport, and which
>      Connection IDs to use are performed independently for IPv4 and
>      IPv6. Thus, if PORT is used both for IPv4 and IPv6, both IPv4 and
>      IPv6 PIM Hello messages MUST be sent, both containing PORT Hello
>      options.
>
> I think this is pretty clear.

That clarifies a bit, but I am still unclear as to how the protocol 
selection takes place. e.g. Does IPv6+SCTP take precedence over IPv4+TCP.

>
>> Section 4.7
>>
>> * Section 4 talks about the router with the lower connection ID
>> initiating the transport layer connection but this does not really map
>> into the rules mentioned in Section 4.7. Specifically, I am not sure
>> Rule 3 for Node A in Section 4.7 conveys the same intent as section 4.
>
> Note that we also allow doing connections on-demand. In that case they
> one with the higher address may open a connection. That is the reason
> for rule 3.
>
> See end of section 4.5 where it says:
>
>      Note that for TCP, it is the router with the lower Connection ID that
>      decides whether to open a connection immediately, or on-demand.  The
>      router with the higher Connection ID SHOULD only initiate a
>      connection on-demand.  That is, if it needs to send a Join/Prune
>      message and there is no currently established connection.
>
> Do you still think something is not clear?

The text only describes the when it is *acceptable* for a router with a 
higher connection ID to initiate a connection, not when it should 
*actually* do so. Specifically section 4.7 should cover this.

Thanks
Suresh