Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-04

Rolf Winter <rolf.winter@hs-augsburg.de> Tue, 24 October 2017 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rolf.winter@hs-augsburg.de>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDFE13F6CF; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 F_yKDq-4uk0j; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fly.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE (fly.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE [141.82.217.48]) (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 35F3213F6B0; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fly.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE961D608E; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:41:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hs-augsburg.de
Received: from fly.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (fly.rz.hs-augsburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pVOBtzwXw5zG; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:41:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.147] (nightswatch.informatik.hs-augsburg.de [141.82.79.79]) by fly.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAA971D605D; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:41:32 +0200 (CEST)
To: Carlos Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, int-dir@ietf.org
Cc: int-area@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <150623836210.5031.17716199391295946656@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Rolf Winter <rolf.winter@hs-augsburg.de>
Message-ID: <c33f7641-3a6b-5724-7189-f0ff130e4f27@hs-augsburg.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:41:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <150623836210.5031.17716199391295946656@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/zLBViRZic5lmDSkXJXDX0hNpumg>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-04
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:41:46 -0000

Carlos,

thanks for the review and sorry for the belated reply. Please inline:

Am 24.09.17 um 09:32 schrieb Carlos Bernardos:
> Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> The document is well written and clear to follow. I have not found any major
> issue. I have some recommendations/questions for the authors:
> 
> * Page 3: RFC 7919 --> RFC 7819
Nice catch.

> 
> * It would be good to have a section (maybe an annex) in which authors describe
> the differences (if any) found in the experiments performed with IPv4 vs IPv6.
> Since IPv6 does not do broadcast, there may be important differences to
> highlight.
> 

We only had v4 networks at the time under observation. While v6 does not 
broadcast, it has the all nodes multicast address. I kind of fear to ask 
the IETF again to do the experiment on the v6 meeting network as, as you 
might remember, it was somewhat controversial :)

> * While I understand that the authors do not provide details about the apps
> analyzed, it would be good to include more information for example about the
> distribution of the frequency of broadcast/multicast messages found in the
> experiments. 

We mention multiple messages per minute. The highest frequency we 
observed was about 8 per minute for a given (popular) app.

> And it would also be nice (though I don't know if this would be
> feasible) to provide some recommended values for the frequencies to use (an app
> developer could benefit from some additional guidelines).

Impossible :)

> 
> * Page 5: "In that respect broadcast can be [...]" --> "In that respect,
> multicast can be [...]" or "In that respect, broadcast/multicast can be [...]".
> Note that the examples used are IPv6, so "broadcast" alone would not apply.
> 

Nice catch, thanks.


Best,

Rolf