Re: [MBONED] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 06 January 2020 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399201200E7; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:57:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=CDSRAA79; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=xAL3ZLE5
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 9rq0sZsYH1lU; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24CBC1200EB; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9714AD; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:57:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 Jan 2020 14:57:20 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=O DA9eUW4jNtTFmaPPTNKezm2KcMp0tixYmihD9Oaf6w=; b=CDSRAA792l1vnfwAO cLRVU6x7f3zoeQwX/AGS+6CDocHDRBwTJWYMc5SyIdbAoRWg7cx4v48ioMFpPx0n 0mylD+EvYX3dmfD6oUdySHisW2XVDCiNBVenq68DEFVTDIuryhbCnixtJEhbS2MB xw4zxmFXaunwXv/gLwhO1E1ixat5EbWK3Q1E3S5Q+PaAgN27f1JVSgtnqGEEm6a0 yjvPTSItHL/AASjQxdFTSjLcvYGdmP+PtdR0PcO/T25hYi0zHYXq64vsESeSIfa8 cTYVSray/Jnmk8AFXtHLHXlhWFATVXeqKnJSB3wRSzj0tcJ97COIZFnDK1AnH1jv b7sag==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=ODA9eUW4jNtTFmaPPTNKezm2KcMp0tixYmihD9Oaf 6w=; b=xAL3ZLE5HdN07rZtdb6o6v9H0nqAQOQWowqwr0Tgp937xRTKvMwTE0R9r NZt0DyO9nhpyeu+j/lO6/UTbm2TfF7cRrDUWlQbieqpldCj3xblctf3Sk1gxs1b/ iLCYtCXA/MHwpxMuAzc7N/GX66szgUHFsNOQohjr2z9cHSR73oI9i/7ETFvvWkRM 6lEm8chFiRTpmmyjtVmhzNqFquqxTiZ0uKdSgkJAhhSNWVSFyfRi6bDxLWRduq/4 2eXb42mRjP4KAsnva4T6p8hLictrq4+J83oY3IB+xyK/Vm4JLw3FfUoVJ85RRVyf qktRO329st9aS04ptV2jwB32q3fPg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:H5ETXo1vJSNbmRc99QRMwheNtv2_6hodbmKIkyxPmxTc5fmE9xteWw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdehtddgudefudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhi shhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomh grihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdekvdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:H5ETXnUiSlYu3WQrcRZTp3WDpoG5bTt66HINA4oIVdiWIxyZ-j63MA> <xmx:H5ETXr62DFTW3yE2j2uo7EJI1yPzHWYHx1DSfMvasryJ46E4erJF5A> <xmx:H5ETXmKMv384DoGsEBgPiPjU1yW7dMGJAT5G1xt1zS85UD9fjf395g> <xmx:H5ETXqHwiPVOHzHeSxz9hh3IsYDBC1EbT_pJCVgCqywxBJa3bFOJIg>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.82]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A75C8005C; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:57:19 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <157108586606.24818.4432409066357706850@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 14:57:17 -0500
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, mboned@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E0275F9B-7ECF-40B4-9842-6DA3AD0F3127@cooperw.in>
References: <157108586606.24818.4432409066357706850@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/8RdVoQuFym8YnIGdl-fZ_OkQuxI>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 19:57:24 -0000

Pete, thanks for your review. I merged several of your comments into my DISCUSS ballot along with a couple others.

Alissa


> On Oct 14, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: On the Right Track
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2019-10-14
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-14
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document has good information and analysis of multicast problems and is
> certainly valuable. However, there are some things in the document which could
> use clarification or editing.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> The first paragraph of section 8 really has too little useful comment. There is
> no reference for 802.1ak, the reference to 802.1Q is inline instead of in the
> references section, and the content of neither of these standards is explained
> in this document. The paragraph doesn't really lay out what the topic of
> discussion is, at least for someone like myself who is not versed in the topic.
> I really think this needs to be addressed.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> (Some of these issues are more or less "minor".)
> 
> Section 3.1.4 seems a little thin to this non-expert. It is certainly true that
> "every station has to be configured to wake up to receive the multicast", but
> it seems like only a poorly designed protocol would create the situation where
> "the received packet may ultimately be discarded" on any kind of regular basis.
> If there are a class of packets that the receiver will ultimately discard, that
> sounds like they should be on a separate multicast address, or the sender
> should be determining if the packet will be discarded before sending it.
> Perhaps what this section is driving at is that multicast protocols are often
> designed without taking power-saving considerations into account, but then
> *that's* what this section should probably talk about. As it is, it sounds like
> the old joke about saying to the doctor, "My arm hurts when I do this" and the
> doctor replying, "The stop doing that".
> 
> In section 3.2.1, the last paragraph is missing a bunch of information:
> "It's often the first service that operators drop": What is "it"?
> "Multicast snooping" is not defined.
> In what scenario are devices "registering"?
> 
> Section 3.2.2: "This intensifies the impact of multicast messages that are
> associated to the mobility of a node." I don't understand why. Are you simply
> saying that as the number of addresses goes up, more discovery packets must be
> sent?
> 
> Section 3.2.4: This seems like more of general problem than a
> multicast-specific one, and as described it sounds like an attack rather than a
> poor outcome of a protocol design decision like the rest of the examples.
> Perhaps framing it that way would make the section clearer.
> 
> Section 4.4: Which problem in section 3 is 4.4 supposed to address?
> 
> Section 5.1: "...and sometimes the daemons just seem to stop, requiring a
> restart of the daemon and causing disruption." What a strange thing to say.
> Does this simply mean "and the current implementations are buggy"?
> 
> Also section 5.1: "The distribution of users on wireless networks / subnets
> changes from one IETF meeting to the next". This document doesn't seem to be
> about the IETF meeting network. This sentence seems inappropriately specific.
> The "NAT" and "Stateful firewalls" sections are also overly specific to the
> IETF meeting network. Generalizing would help.
> 
> 7: This section seems quite thin, and perhaps unnecessary. The recommendations
> are implicit in the previous sections.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 3.2.4: The mention of the face-to-face (probably better: "plenary")
> meeting seems unnecessary.
> 
> Section 5.1: Numbering the subsections would probably be useful.
> 
>