Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-08

Colin Perkins <> Fri, 08 April 2022 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAEB3A1B77; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 03:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEGgpWjnZVpq; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 03:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D96533A1B6D; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 03:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=RDVm4QK2JxKphejwQ4tjonGQUfAtkY0sIbFIWfSigfc=; b=RPN5mwO/sZTYfIOsevKMiKdcje mU2jUg4DSRm1HXF5hvpSYeER8dNPGYrpRR4L6GzkHJHMeNqXFjw0SqKtZKE7Fx3pracvIIIR10V9Z 6HYyqSe1kDX7PSd1KaSi1daWRIkCag2QuiCxF3yM6SlTiTX+pc1XNSDAHfco/m3zTZeuAFmMwJT56 9qpOxJwpMT3J8q1/v0ZfowDzZRgKNCqcpJ051IMZmDDSIVhyXIWM03zRuQ8FyJaBUp1aXp4meMs0p ulpKlzs4EtxPQuug/1XGws1tdcj1ow7FX2EfhqWSigGmm+zTS2vrPEMPQuggiwNIq9Cc0Xam4HLnU PESALKBQ==;
Received: from [] (port=38796 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1nclyK-0003qK-CZ; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:36:12 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:35:55 +0100
Cc: Jérôme François <>, The IRSG <>,,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Hitoshi Asaeda <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:36:23 -0000

Thank you for the detailed review! There look to be a number of clarifications suggested, so I’ll mark this as Revised Draft Needed in the datatracker. 


> On 8 Apr 2022, at 10:57, Hitoshi Asaeda <> wrote:
> Dear Jérôme,
> Thank you so much for your careful review.
> We'll address your comments in the revision and reply to your question in a short time.
> Regards,
> Hitoshi
>> On Apr 8, 2022, at 16:21, Jérôme François <> wrote:
>> Dear Colin, IRSG members and draft authors,
>> Sorry for  providing my review late but below are my comments for draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-08.
>> Best regards
>> Jérôme
>> -----------------
>> In general, the draft is well written but there some parts would merit clarification. Below are my comments, suggestions and questions (which actually reflects some lack of clarity IMHO).
>> Section 3 about the message formats is not easy to follow because it is unclear how these messages will be used. Of course, answers comes in the next section 4 but as section 3 is quite long I think this could be improved by extending a bit the overview given in section 1 to “prepare” the reader for section 3. For instance in section 1, we can easily understand the flow of request and reply messages but with not so much regarding their content. My suggestions are to comment more on figure 1 and 2 in order to highlight the different structures used in messages afterwards (request header blocks, report blocks, reply  blocks) and when they are added. At a first glance, when I read report block I was thinking this was related to reply (somehow I thought reply = report). Of course when I read again I saw this is not but as the term can be little confusing, clarifying and emphasizing would avoid confusion. You can for example distinguish what information would be set in the request message and the information set in the reply. For replies, there are possibly multiple reply sub-blocks but it remains unclear for me what each sub-block should contain. I guess when there are multiple objects matching the prefix in the request but I’m not sure this is clearly stated somewhere (even in other sections).
>> Some detailed comments per section below:
>> Section 2.1 (definition):
>> - add the definitions of publisher and consumer as these terms are widely used in the text then
>> - CCNinfo user is also a node but a node (based on your definition) can be router, publisher or consumer. So, is CCNinfo user a consumer node? Or something different?
>> - router definition: Unclear what is meant by “facilitates”. Facilitates would suppose that is something not mandatory but which can help. Without router, content retrieval cannot be done I guess so the routers enable content retrieval ?
>> Section 3:
>> - page 9: “the Request and Reply Type values in the fixed header are”: use “PacketType values” to refer to packet format in figure 3
>> - page 9 “The CCNinfo Request and Reply messages MUST ...”: move/merge this sentence as first in the previous paragraph as this sounds a bit redundant here.
>> - Figure 6: I was wondering if there is a particular reason to have the request block TLV apart from other blocks (request header and report). If yes, you could mention it in the doc.
>> - page 11: “and __THE__ Request block TLV (Figure 7)”
>> - page 12 SkipHop: “Routers corresponding to the value specified” → “The number of routers corresponding...” (as this is a value not a set of routers right ?). State that this will correspond to the first routers in the paths toward the publisher.
>> - “request arrival time” is used both in request block and report blocks with the same definition.  My understanding is that request block is inserted by the initiator (CCNinfo user), so the request arrival time in that case seems to not be “the timestamp specifying the arrival time of the CCNinfo Request packet at a specific router” but the timestamp the CCNinfo user create the request (section 4,1, p. 21). If if I’m right, you could also think changing the term “request arrival time” by something more relevant in Request block TLV.
>> - page 23 and page 24: “it it terminates the Request...”: remove one “it”
>> - section 5.6: I appreciate this section as I have in mind this kind of complex example when reading previous sections.
>> - section 8,2: precise what is meant by “identified”. I understand that if a router hides itself you can just know there was a router but you cannot know its id (so IMHY it is not really identify but you can detect there is a hidden router)?

Colin Perkins