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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 17 December 2015 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 CE6EF1B29B0; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 t0Smah0y0hKx; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26631B29AE; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608182CED2; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:51:43 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IvKwWDUpeL6Y; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:51:42 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965512CE21; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:51:42 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7E38D65-1EE8-469F-B6B8-7C2E73308016"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <D76BEC12-DCAC-4155-8EB2-7CA0BE06103E@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:51:43 +0200
Message-Id: <1715DCB3-D6EF-4045-88F3-E5C603B5630B@piuha.net>
References: <56562C04.2060308@nostrum.com> <566FF737.40103@isode.com> <D76BEC12-DCAC-4155-8EB2-7CA0BE06103E@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/omf8qtHhEpVFOqVgF1uFC7Z7Sn0>
Cc: "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:51:48 -0000

Thanks for your review, Alexey!

Authors, what say you?

Jari

On 15 Dec 2015, at 14:23, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

> 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
>