[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.