[Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-08
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 14 September 2015 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 B08851B36E6; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 SHSxyJnQWe33; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBAB31B32CE; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t8EKV5da056801 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:31:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable.local
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.all@ietf.org
References: <559D98AC.7040403@nostrum.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <55F72E83.3060703@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:30:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <559D98AC.7040403@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wuJgtuBEbGJNikgruSk3ai7HOVk>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-08
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:31:07 -0000
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-mm-netconf-time-capability-08 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 14 Sep 2015 IETF LC End Date: past IESG Telechat date: 17 Sep 2015 Summary: Ready for publication as an Experimental RFC The changes since -05 address my concerns with allowing cancels to be scheduled, and dealing with cancels not being processed in time. The added discussion on how to choose a max-sched-future value is good. I still would have preferred a hard limit for this experimental period. The addition of cancelling all pending commands when the submitters connection closes is a good one. The document doesn't reflect the email discussion we had around how certain 3rd parties can cancel commands. I encourage adding at least a sentence reminding implementers and experimenting operators to remember that they can. RjS On 7/8/15 4:39 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > 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>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 8 Jul 2015 > IETF LC End Date: 29 Jul 2015 > IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled > > Summary: This draft has open issues to address before publication > > This draft adds two separable concepts to netconf > * Asking for and receiving knowledge of when a command was executed > * Requesting that a command be executed at a particular time > > The utility of the first is obvious, and I have no problems with the > specification of that part of this extension. Would it be better to > pull these apart and progress them separately? > > The utility of the second would be more obvious if the draft didn't > limit the time to be "near future scheduling". It punts on most of the > hard problems with scheduling things outside a very tight range (15 > seconds in the future by default), without motivating the advantages > of saying "wait until 5 seconds from now before you do this". > > So: > > Why was 15 seconds chosen? Could you add a motivating example that > shows why being able to say "now is not good, but 5 seconds from now > is better" is useful? (Something like having a series of things happen > as close to simultaneously without the network delay of sending the > requests impacting how they are separated perhaps?) > > Given the punt, why isn't there a statement that sched-max-future MUST > NOT be configured for more than some small value (twice the default, > or 30 seconds, perhaps), especially while this is targeted for > Experimental? Without something like that, I think the document needs > to talk about more of the issues it is trying to avoid with longer > term scheduling, even if it doesn't solve those issues. (If I have a > fast pipe, I can make a server keep a lot of queued requests, eating a > lot of state, even if the window is only 15 seconds. Pointing to how > netconf protects against state-exhaustion abuse might be useful). > > The security considerations section talks about malicious parties > attempting to cause sched-max-future to be configured to "a small > value". Could you more clearly characterize "small", given that the > default is 15 seconds? > > Even with the near-future limit, there are issues to discuss > introduced with the ability to cancel a request: > > * What prevents a 3rd party from cancelling a request? I think it's > only that the 3rd party would have to obtain the right id to put in > the cancel message. If so, the document should talk about how you keep > eavesdroppers from seeing those ids, and that the servers that > generate them should make ids that are hard to guess. > > * Especially given the near-future limitation, you run a high risk > that the cancel arrives after the identified request has been > executed. It's not clear in the current text what the server should > do. I assume you want the server to reply to the cancel with a "I > couldn't cancel that" rather than to do something like try to undo the > request. The document should be explicit. > > * The document should explicitly disallow adding <scheduled-time> to > <cancel-schedule> > > One editorial comment: It would help to move the concept of the > near-future limitation much earlier in the document, perhaps even into > the introduction and abstract. > > And for the shepherding AD: The document has no shepherd or shepherd > writeup. While a writeup is not required, one would have been useful > in this case to discuss the history of (lack of) discussion of the > document on the group's list and the group's reaction to progressing > as Experimental as an Individual Submission.
- [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf-tim… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mm-netconf… Tal Mizrahi
- [Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review: draft-mm-netco… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review: draft-mm-n… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review: draft-mm-n… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art Telechat review: draft-mm-n… Jari Arkko