[Int-area] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 21:17 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietf.org
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0C1128DF6; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:17:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.67.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151319983629.30177.6703576748992856921.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:17:16 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/2Ko3F_Yure3ynTJUy7AZYA7TkV0>
Subject: [Int-area] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:17:16 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-intarea-probe-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-probe/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The Code field of the Request is set to 0 - what happens if a different value is received? (2) The Request includes 2 fields (Identifier and Sequence Number) that are used “to aid in matching Extended Echo Replies to Extended Echo Requests”. Their use seems to be a local matter (as the values are simply copied in to the Reply. Can you please provide guidance on their use? Why are there 2 fields (and not just a single one)? I’m assuming/hoping that the design had use cases in mind that can be reflected in the document. (3) It would be nice to set up a registry for the Reserved fields. (4) I’m not sure I understand the use/intention of the L-bit. The description says that it is used (on the Request) to indicate whether the probed interfaces resides on the proxy node (or not). How does the originator of the Request know that information? The other function of this bit seems to be to control how the Interface Identification Object can identify the probed interface…while it seems to make sense that a probed interface that doesn’t reside on the proxy node would only be identified by it’s address, it still makes me wonder how the sender of the Request would know, and why it even matters that it does and that it indicates it to the proxy node.
- [Int-area] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Int-area] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on dr… Ron Bonica