[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ipoib-connected-mode-02.txt

[Vivek Kashyap <[e-mail]>]

thanks. I'm catching up a bit late and I see some responses. Responding to 
this mail since it covers all review comments. I'll make all changes 
togehter with other IESG comments. See comments below marked by <VK>.

Vivek
--
Vivek Kashyap
Linux Technology Center, IBM
[e-mail] 
[e-mail] 
Ph: 503 578 3422 T/L: 775 3422





"Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>
02/15/2006 04:16 PM
 
        To:     "General Area Review Team" <[e-mail]>
        cc:     "Margaret Wasserman" <[e-mail]>, "H.K. 
Jerry Chu" <[e-mail]>, "Bill Strahm" <[e-mail]>, Vivek 
Kashyap/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS
        Subject:        Gen-ART Review of 
draft-ietf-ipoib-connected-mode-02.txt


I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Summary: This document is on the right track for publication as a Proposed 

Standard. I do have some comments, but overall the document is in good 
shape.

<VK> :) <VK>

Specific review comments:

There are a couple of places in the document that refer to 2^31-octet link 

MTUs for connected-mode Infiniband), and then talk about "reasonably large 

MTUs" without qualification. I would be more comfortable if the text 
talked 
about "reasonably large MTUs, up to the 64-kilobyte maximum IP length", 
just 
to manage expectations more clearly.

<VK> This covers jumbograms as Brian mentioned. In that context we can 
probably leave the text as it is. <VK>

The document does attempt to explain "why use connected mode if datagram 
mode is most appropriate for IP?". The introduction names two advantages 
of 
connected mode (larger MTUs and enhanced reliability), but it would be 
nice 
to be a bit clearer ("These are the advantages of Infiniband connected 
mode 
over datagram mode:") - I'm not even sure from the text if these are the 
only advantages or not.

<VK> ok...can add a list. <VK>

The document does talk about retransmission timer interaction with TCP RTO 

(in Section 7.1), and this is good, but the text suggests "the RC timers 
as 
well as the maximum message size supported at the IPoIB-RC connection must 

be set judiciously". This is actually harder than it looks, because TCP 
RTO 
is adaptive (with a minumum value of one second), so it would be nice to 
offer a little more guidance on selecting RC timer values.

<VK> ok..I'll consult some IB folks and determine how to phrase the 
guidance. fyi..RC timers are sub-second. <VK>

In Section 8.0, Security Considerations, "A node may be returned a false 
set 
of flags by an imposter" is just a little too out-of-context for me to 
parse. Naming the operation being attacked and/or the message containing 
the 
false set of flags would help.

<VK> ok. <VK>

Editorial comments noticed during Gen-ART review:

In the second sentence of the Introduction, "The document [IPoIB_ARCH] 
provides" is awkward - the style used in the first sentence, "The 
InfiniBand 
specification [IB_ARCH] can be found" is clearer to me (this is a nit). 

<VK> will incorporate when above changes are made. <VK>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art