[icnrg] Last Call comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-nsarch-considerations-02
"David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net> Sun, 08 September 2019 13:50 UTC
Return-Path: <daveoran@orandom.net>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59695120072 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Lku7meVxSBzT for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spark.crystalorb.net (spark.crystalorb.net [IPv6:2607:fca8:1530::c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD60120058 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [174.63.87.146] ([IPv6:2601:184:4081:19c1:1d5c:9d33:24c7:aadc]) (authenticated bits=0) by spark.crystalorb.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id x88DoJB4018279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:50:21 -0700
From: "David R. Oran" <daveoran@orandom.net>
To: ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 09:50:18 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5648)
Message-ID: <E97DB6D0-4381-4D02-A27D-54C627E202AA@orandom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_ACE87705-81CF-47BE-A7D9-4592C6BB73CB_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/HHu8BxVaBhMNx0JOzU79uhe8eqc>
Subject: [icnrg] Last Call comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-nsarch-considerations-02
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 13:50:25 -0000
These comments are with <chair hat off>. In general, the technical content of this draft is in good shape and in my opinion it is mostly ready to to advance. I have both some technical and editorial comments below. I think both sets can be resolved without requiring a second last call and just incorporated in a revised draft prior to sending on for IRSG review. Technical comments: - on page three you talk about “sequencing” name resolution request queries. It’s not clear what is meant by this, since one would think individual queries are independent of one another and don’t need any ordering properties. Perhaps you mean the processing of a single query through the protocols that manage the distributed nature of the NRS? Some clarification is needed here. - a bit further down, it would be good to disentangle the various forms of output from an NRS query, since returning a locator, a off-path-cache pointer, or an alias name are all different results that could affect what the next action by the NRS client might be. Some more detail would help. - you assume NRS resolvers have caches. This is itself an architectural consideration since caches can be wrong and clients of the NRS need a way to figure out if they are getting authoritative information or not to have a workable retry/fallback strategy. Perhaps re-work this to separate out the question of NRS caches. - on page 4 you use the term “authority domain” which I don’t think is generally understood the same way by everybody. Do you actually mean “autonomous system”, or something else? Perhaps the authoritative domain that owns the name assignment for a portion of a namespace? - on page 5 you assert that name-based routing has to be scalable enough to achieve “optimal location” of the requested content in the routing table. I think this is not an absolute requirement, as achieving optimality if a lot harder than achieving reachability at overhead considerably below that incurred by flooding. The key is if using an NRS provides better state*rate algorithmic complexity than pure name-based routing and under what circumstances. - the discussion of name registration by forwarder caches needs a bit of work. If you only do on-path caching, it is not necessary to involve the NRS in forwarder caches. Involving an NRS may be a good idea for off-path caching, but alternatives like cooperative caching also exist. - in the next bullet section you say FIBs tell you if the content name exists. No, it only tells you if the routing system considers it reachable. Editorial comments: - As a general comment, the draft needs a considerable amount of editing for English language usage, grammar, etc. before it’s ready to go for IRSG review. If the authors agree, I would be willing to take this on and produce a cleaned-up version once we have resolution of the technical comments (both those above and those of other ICNRG reviewers). - a couple of sections need to be added and/or filled out: IANA considerations, Acknowledgments. - It would be helpful to have in the introduction a cross-explanation of what is in this document versus what is in the NRS requirements draft. Obviously, ditto for the requirements draft - I’ll be posting comments on that once I finish a second pass through it. [End of comments] DaveO
- [icnrg] Last Call comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-ns… David R. Oran