[manet] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 14 December 2016 17:12 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: manet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FE112951D; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:12:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.39.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148173557020.16832.1794865129983846438.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:12:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/0Ii0dsDdbSpp7SeVvm_B4jK20Cg>
Cc: manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-dlep@ietf.org, manet-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [manet] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:12:50 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-26: Discuss 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-manet-dlep/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Am I missing something or does the doc not specify which policy/policies should be used for registration of new values in these new registries? (Also previously mentioned by the tsv-art reviewer - thx!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Technical comments: 1) You say "If a Signal is received with a TTL value that is NOT equal to 255, the receiving implementation MUST ignore the Signal." and "If a packet in the TCP stream is received with a TTL value other than 255, the receiving implementation MUST immediately transition to the Session Reset state." However, there is no requirement that the initial TTL must be 225. I guess you can just add a sentence to require this from the sender. 2) You say: "If an unrecognized, or unexpected Signal is received, or a received Signal contains unrecognized, invalid, or disallowed duplicate Data Items, the receiving implementation MUST ignore the Signal." Would it make sense to also send an error signal in this case or was this omitted as it could be used as a DoS reflector? If so, maybe add a sentence. 3) in section 10.5: "DLEP Heartbeats are not fully established until receipt of the Session Initialization Response Message (Section 10.6), and therefore implementations MUST use their own timeout and retry heuristics for this Message." I'm not sure if re-trying makes sense given that TCP should deliver the data reliably here. I guess time-out to terminate the TCP and a local error log would be more appropriate. 4) section 11.16: "The Latency value is reported as transmission delay. The calculation of latency is implementation dependent. For example, the latency may be a running average calculated from the internal queuing." Not sure if this is very useful. I would either recommend to define to report the average (or max?) latency (where the calculation is still of course implementation specific) or have three different items for min, max, and current average. Editorial comment: The 2119 boilerplate has a weird position as part of a subsection. I assume that this is intended to say that the normative text starts here but it could also be interpreted to be just part of the subsection. Also having 'Requirements' (3.1) as subsection of 'Extension' (3) seems to be an error. I would suggest to have the 2119 boilerplate as well as the Requirements section both as own main level sections. And sec 3 and sec 7 are both called 'Extensions'...? Further: I didn't see a reply to the tsv-art review by Micheal Scharf. Have those comments be addressed? Here is his review on -25: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. TSV-ART review comments: * I think the DLEP protocol makes an implicit assumption that the 1-hop link between the router and the modem is unlikely to become a bottleneck, e.g., because its bandwidth is larger than the maximum possible bandwidth of the modem. I assume that in typical deployments this condition can be fulfilled, and the hop count limitation provides some safety measures. Yet, the link between the router and modem could possibly run over a tunnel, with unknown performance characteristics (e.g., another wireless backhaul link). It is unclear what a router would indeed learn from the information provided by DLEP in such a case. This scenario is not the target environment for the protocol, but it would make sense to more explicitly spell out that assumption, e.g., in Section 1. Other comments: * Page 9: "If the router and modem support both IPv4 and IPv6, the IPv6 transport MUST be used for the DLEP session." seems inconsistent with page 21: "For routers supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 DLEP operation, it is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 be selected as the transport." * I am not an IANA expert but at first sight the IANA section does not comprehensively describe the policy for modifying the IANA registries (Section 4 in RFC 5226). Is it "Standards Action"? This in particular matters for the extensions in Section 13.6.
- [manet] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-m… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [manet] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ie… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [manet] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ie… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)