[Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 23 January 2009 15:00 UTC
Return-Path: <rmt-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rmt-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rmt-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C1628C1CC; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:00:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADFB28C1CC for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHMEq4hEzCAI for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0543328C1C6 for <rmt@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 2009C208B2; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:59:53 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ae75fbb00000304c-f4-4979db68831c
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id F2C0E20565; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:59:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:59:52 +0100
Received: from [147.214.183.23] ([147.214.183.23]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:59:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4979DB68.1060904@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:59:52 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised@tools.ietf.org, rmt@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2009 14:59:52.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EEF1B80:01C97D6B]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07
X-BeenThere: rmt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Reliable Multicast Transport <rmt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/rmt>
List-Post: <mailto:rmt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: rmt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rmt-bounces@ietf.org Hi,
I have reviewed the LCT builidng block and have the following comment. 1. Section 3, page 7: "Some possible multiple rate congestion control protocols are described in [VIC1998], [BYE2000], and [LUB2002]. A possible single rate congestion control protocol is described in [RIZ2000]." To my knowledge WEBRC (RFC 3738) is the only actually standardized (as experimental) that is suitable for the scalability LCT is intended for. Can we please include a reference and indicate that this actually is the currently recommended. References to any other potential solution is okay. 2. Section 4.1, page 11: "the Source- Specific Multicast (SSM) model as defined in [HOL2001]." RFC 4607 is available and specifies SSM. Isn't that a more suitable reference? 3. Section 4.3: Also here I think the references and discussion should be updated to what is actually available. 4. You clearly forgotten to check the ID-nits on this document: http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07.txt Then you would have seen that you have references to 3 obsoleted RFCs: RFC 1889, RFC 2327, and RFC 2423. It also indicates that you are missing the actual entry in the reference section for RFC 1305. 5. Section 5.2.1: " All senders and receivers implementing LCT MUST support the EXT_NOP Header Extension and MUST recognize EXT_AUTH and EXT_TIME, but MAY NOT be able to parse their content." MAY NOT is not defined in RFC 2119. Please rephrase. 6. Section 5.2.2: " When the SCT-Low flag is set, the associated 32 bit time value provides an unsigned integer representing a multiple of 1/2^^32 of a second, in order to allow sub-second precision. When the SCT- Low flag is set, the SCT-High flag MUST be set too. In the particular case where NTP is used, these 32 bits provide the 32 least significant bits of a 64 bit NTP timestamp." I found the above text a bit confusing about when including SCT-LOW. It says that also SCT-HIGH must be set. I didn't get that means multiple 32-bit entries until reading at the end. Maybe the following text should be moved earlier in the section? " Several "time value" fields MAY be present in a given EXT_TIME Header Extension, as specified in the "Use-field". When several "time value" fields are present, they MUST appear in the order specified by the associated flag position in the "Use-field": first SCT-High (if present), then SCT-Low (if present), then ERT (if present), then SLC (if present). Receivers SHOULD ignore additional fields within the EXT_TIME Header Extension which they do not support." 7. Section 6.1: " The session description could be in a form such as SDP as defined in [RFC2327], or XML metadata as defined in [RFC3023], or HTTP/Mime headers as defined in [RFC2616], etc." Aren't there more concreate examples of XML formats for this usage then referencing RFC 3023? 8. Section 7, and possible in other places as well. This document talks about authentication mechanism as very needed. But you haven't included any references to the ones we actually have been discussing or even developed for usage with RMT. I think some up to date references here would be good. Maybe even recommendations? 9. Section 8. Please update the reference to TESLA to the TESLA based mechanism for RMT. 10. Section 9.1: In RFC 5226 that obsoletes RFC 2434 the IETF consensus policy does not exist, instead the corresponding one is IETF Review. When submitting an updated draft, please remember RFC 5378 and the issues with it. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rmt mailing list Rmt@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
- [Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revi… Mark Watson
- Re: [Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revi… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revi… Mark Watson
- Re: [Rmt] AD review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revi… Magnus Westerlund