Re: [pim] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 09 March 2023 02:03 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA55C15C520; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 18:03:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87Eun3nxUluo; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 18:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF4AC15C524; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 18:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PXCCH5b28znkk1; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 03:03:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4PXCCH59BJzkvGL; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 03:03:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 03:03:39 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ZAk+e21lYuJ+DFQc@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <167744051037.38266.6321476669893686492@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/mnAq7mXcWUjD_zvORdtVFO_DeSk>
Subject: Re: [pim] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-08
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:03:49 -0000
Thanks again Tommy All textual fixes for your review are integrated into revision -09. I did not add more text to explain your transport related questions as i felt that it is basic PIM assert understanding that readers who want to use/implement PIM (with or without assert packing) should have Hence only the prior explanation email to you, which i summarized in changelog for benefit of possible later reviewers too. Cheers Toerless On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Tommy Pauly via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Tommy Pauly > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. > > Thanks to the authors for this clear and useful document. Reducing the overhead > of redundant multicast packets is a good improvement! > > The main transport-related comment I have is for section 3.3.1: > “ Routers MAY support a configurable option for sending PackedAssert messages > twice in short order (such as 50msec apart), to overcome possible loss, but > only when the following two conditions are met.” > > How will an end point decide to retransmit like that or not? How is loss > detected? > > I did find several nits: > > “RP” is mentioned in the introduction before it is defined. It would be useful > to expand this here. It would also be good to expand “AT” on first use. > > Section 3.2 seems to have a formatting issue, with “ If the P)acked flag is 0”. > Do you mean “ If the (P) flag is 0”? This section also says “If the (P) flag is > 2”; how can a 1-bit flag have a value of 2? > > In section 3.3, “Only the compactness of their encoding” is a sentence > fragment, not a complete sentence. > > In section 3.3.1, this normative requirement is confusingly worded: “ > Implementation SHOULD NOT send only Asserts, but no PackedAsserts under all > conditions, when all routers on the LAN do support Assert Packing.” Can you > rephrase? > > In the same section, please add a reference when discussing DSCP markings. > > In section 4: In the packed form, are the version/flags fields repeated? Do we > need to mandate normatively that the packed flags are not nested? It’s implied > but not normatively said. > > In section 4.4.1, the field description order doesn’t seem to match the > structure values in the diagram. > -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- [pim] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-a… Tommy Pauly via Datatracker
- Re: [pim] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [pim] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [pim] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of … Tommy Pauly