Re: [ippm] [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Tim,

Thank you for your review, as you may have noticed, I have balloted also a DISCUSS (but on another topic -- fixed by the authors in their next revision) on the 12th of July.

Giuseppe, nice to read your reply and the interaction.

Regards

-éric


On 15/07/2022, 15:53, "Int-dir on behalf of Timothy Winters via Datatracker" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Timothy Winters
    Review result: Not Ready

    draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02

    I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02.
    These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
    Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
    like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
    them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
    details on the INT Directorate, see
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

    Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as
    DISCUSS.

    DISCUSS:
    Section 3.1
    This section states two possible methods using either a fixed number of packets
    or fixed timer.  Only fixed timer is defined in draft.  I would think that
    supporting the fixed timer method would be a MUST for implementations of this
    document.

    Section 3.2
    Suggest a lower case must for clock network synch.    I would suggest using a
    capital MUST, if the clocks aren't in synch this method will not work properly.
      Additionally, I was surprised there are no suggesting on what to use to keep
    the clocks in synch (NTP, PTP) or precision suggested in time keeping
    mechanism.  These methods are referenced in Section 7 but I think it would make
    sense to give people the options in this section.

    Section 7.1
    While is says recommended to be a controlled domain, it should document what
    happens if it leaves the controlled and how to protect the borders of the
    domain.

    NIT:
    OLD:
    As discussed in the previous section, a simple way to create the
       blocks is to "color" the traffic (two colors are sufficient), so that
       packets belonging to different consecutive blocks will have different
       colors."

    New:
    As discussed in the previous section, a simple way to create the
       blocks is to "color" the traffic (two colors are sufficient), so that
       packets belonging to alternate consecutive blocks will have different
       colors.



    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir