[Gen-art] Gen-ART: Re-review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-23
Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 14 December 2012 18:02 UTC
Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 5B52321F8AB4 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:02:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.112
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, 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 kryvkC2hvYqY for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:02:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BB621F8A12 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so3016860lah.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:02:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jUfYGSr154GTOsSXP59/OxjnBw0WevTdDhmVsn2xTWM=; b=SgjjRCwWxsuULpm6Hw1JyqVyM63fj4/WcDF6sWzvmPtEzRZfFB8zczYeslm2VeS7U+ vuUzxMg8aB2NLU5TE5pQyCQtemogaSx/oOmqN4oRCPTcTOIy78gFSB+LNoMoeJwchSNB VWyfTAPk70iMOpwRl3o8efzdL79PuJx23uPT/3TBnXh7AFa3Bd3H67C7cSqsYD4XpHEf oP7z6/x803mQOsBRzAQvBTv5HBAk2YQwY4rd5QJncPm6mubex+7W+Rw7ge6DhfamMvLs H8I96uXDZoJvxmlQI13J9mjGsbQn4pyZL2JQO2/dzD9632xUmOLwJI4OXf8NS7DA9hN9 b49w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.162.1 with SMTP id xw1mr3527843lab.3.1355508148933; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.20.41 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:02:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN5j_kHWLvxv4xc=Hp2Hq65Sm95+ko3E6oAX0pNH=OojCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-p2psip-base.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART: Re-review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-23
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:02:34 -0000
Russ asked that I re-review the updated document. 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>. Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-base-23 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 14 December 2012 Re-Review started Date (-21): 28 March 2012 (was told a new version was coming out) Original Review Date (-17) : 6 August 2011 IETF LC End Date: 22 July 2011 Summary: Not Ready. I reviewed through section 6 of this version (section 5 of -17) against my comments on the -17 . Since many of my comments had not been addressed, I'm not going to take the time to re-review the remainder of the document. I also *strongly* recommend that you ensure Henning has reviewed this document *before* it gets into the RFC editor's queue. He has fairly strict (and quite accurate) views on grammar and structure but it really isn't good to have so many changes go in at AUTH48 as there is a risk of introducing true technical bugs or changing something that was carefully crafted to achieve WG consensus: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/writing-bugs.html Comments: ========= I have reviewed my previous comments on this document -17 as compared to the -23. Comments from the -17 that remain are prefaced with [-17] Major: ------ General: --[-17] The message names are used inconsistently. The IANA registry has the message codes all lower case. There are places in the examples and the body of the document where the _req part is missing, there is no "_", the first letters are Upper case, etc. The messages are also used in a general sense - e.g., "MUST perform an Attach", which should really be stated as "MUST send an attach_req message). [-23] For the latter point, Cullen responded that this isn't really just talking about sending a message but rather performing a function that results in a message being sent. However, I still contend that there is inconsistency and the whole concept of an Attach function/process/whatever is not well defined. There are times when "attached" appears to be used purely as a verb rather than referring to the functionality, but it is not always clear. For example, the last two sentences in section 3.4: "Instead, we use the Attach request to establish a connection. Attach uses ICE [RFC5245] to establish the connection. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with ICE." I will note that the only mention of "Attach" previously was in the definitions for Connection Table ("Attach handshakes") and Routing Table ("some peers will have Attached"). The word "Attach" is used with the _req or the word "request" in places like the following in section 3.4 (1st sentence): "There are two cases where Attach is not used." I have no idea really whether this means this Attach function/process is not needed or the message is not required to be sent. Major - detailed: - Section 3.4, last paragraph: Accepting Cullen's comment that this text is not normative, I'll let my first set of -17 comments on this one go. However, the following is still not clear to me: What is meant by the "specified link set" - is that referring to all the nearby peers or the peers+enough others? Or is this more clearly (and normatively) specified elsewhere, such that a reference could be added. - [-17 5.1.2] Section 6.1.2: -- Last paragraph (9) mixes normative text with in an example. The normative text needs to be separated from the example - e.g., split some of the sentences into the normative behavior and then the example. The example should be written in terms of what happens (which is what was done in the previous examples in this section and not what SHOULD, MAY or MUST happen). For example, this sentence: "Node A MUST implement an algorithm that ensures that A returns a response to this request to node B with the destination list [B, Z, Y, X], provided that the node to which A forwards the request follows the same contract. should have a generic normative statement rather than saying "Node A MUST". It should be something like: "A node must implement an algorithm that ensures it returns a response …", then the same sentence can be a "For example, Node A MUST…" - [-17 5.3.2.1] Section 6.3.2.1: --1st paragraph: shouldn't this be normative? "the configuration document has a sequence number..." -> "the configuration document MUST contain a sequence number which MUST be monotonically increasing mod 65535" - [-17 5.3.2.2] -Section 6.3.2.2: --Paragraph after second structure, suggest the following changes: ---"the generation counters should" -> "the generation counters SHOULD" ---"An implementation could use.." -> "An implementation MAY use…" ---"the node confirms that the generation counter matches" -> "the node MUST confirm that the generation counter matches" ---"If it does not match, it is silently dropped." -> "If it does not match, it MUST be silently dropped." - [-17 5.3.3.1] Section 6.3.3.1: --1st para: "a request returns" -> "a request MUST return" --1st para: "then the message code is the response code that matches the request" -> "then the message code MUST be set to the response code that matches the request" --2nd para: "message code is set" -> "message code MUST be set" - [-17 5.3.4] Section 6.3.4 - needs normative language: --1st paragraph after GenericCertificate structure: ---"All signatures are formatted" -> "Alls signatures MUST be formatted" ---"The input structure…varies.." -> "The input structure … MAY vary…" - [-23] Review stops at section 6.4.2 Minor: ------ - idnits identifies 5 errors (downrefs). There are also unused references and 22 warnings that should be reviewed - the ones, in particular, which should be fixed are with regards to normative language usage. - While Cullen responded to this comment with an explanation, there was no change to clarify the text: - [-17] Section 1.2.1, 2nd paragraph: I don't understand the example as to why a single application requires multiple usages - i.e, why voicemail? Isn't the intent to say that an application might need to use both SIP and XMPP - i.e., you wouldn't define a "usage" for an application, would you? - [-17] Section 2. Some of the definitions use terms that are not yet defined, so that's not particularly helpful - i.e,. Attach and Update are used. In some cases (e.g., Connection Table), you could just delete the statement with the reference. - [-17] Section 3.1, 1st para: This sentence doesn't grok because the concept of "overlay parameters" hasn't been mentioned before this section nor has the concept of a "configuration document". "The overlay parameters are specified in a configuration document." At a minimum those terms should be defined in the terminology section and introduced in the intro paragraph in section 3. - [-17] Section 3.3, last paragraph. Add a reference to 5.4.2.4 after "RouteQuery method" - [-17] Section 5.1.2: --1st paragraph: I have no idea what the "other three cases" references. - [-17 Section 5.3] Section 6.3: The three parts of the messages are listed and the last sentence says that "The following sections describe the format of each part of the message", but there are 4 sub-sections in 5.3, with the first section NOT describing one of the three parts of the messages. I suggest to strike that last sentence and just put references to the sections in the list items for each of the three messages - [-17 Section 5.6] Section 6.6: -- The last three paragraphs are confusing. ---In particular, it's not clear what algorithms are being referenced in this sentence: "We will first define each of these algorithms, then define overlay link protocols that use them." --- In the note paragraph, I believe "These protocols have been chosen…" is referring to the three overlay link protocols supported by RELOAD per this document. ---The Note to implementors paragraph seems out of context --- Per my next comment, I suggest to move the detailed discussion of future overlay link protocols to the appendix, so some of this text may be relevant only to that. -[ -17 5.6.1] Section 6.6.1: I suggest that the sub-sections in this section be moved to an appendix and a reference to such be added. [-23] Did not review beyond section 6. Nits: ----- - [-17] Section 2. --General: It would be helpful if the terms were alphabetized. [Note, Cullen's response was that this causes forward reference problems, but that's unavoidable. If the terms are alphabetized, it is much easier to find them. ] --Node: "We use the term "Node" to refer to …" -> "Refers to …" or something to make it more consistent with the format for the other terms. - Section 6.1.1, last bullet: "later" -> "latter" - Section 6.1.3: Shouldn't this be "For example," rather than "I.e.,"? If "I.e.," is appropriate in that those are the only routing algorithms which might be used, then I would suggest adjusting the sentence structure by using words rather than the abbreviation (it's debatable whether the latter is grammatically correct) to something like. "This means that a node…". - [-17 5.5.1.6] Section 6.5.1.6: Add references for SCTP and DCCP. [-23] Did not review beyond nits identified for section 6.
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART: Re-review of draft-ietf-p2psip… Mary Barnes
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART: Re-review of draft-ietf-p2… Gonzalo Camarillo