Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-00
Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Thu, 24 November 2011 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: sam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF74021F8BD5 for <sam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b7cNNJK+zvDp for <sam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF5F21F8BBB for <sam@irtf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08] (shalmaneser.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "petithug", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 424A920142; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4ECE764E.1040202@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:30 -0800
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111114 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dr Mario Kolberg <mko@cs.stir.ac.uk>
References: <4EB6CDEE.6020408@acm.org> <4EC53685.7080801@cs.stir.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4EC53685.7080801@cs.stir.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sam <sam@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-00
X-BeenThere: sam@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "For use by members of the Scalable Adaptive Multicast \(SAM\) RG" <sam.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/sam>, <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/sam>
List-Post: <mailto:sam@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sam>, <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:52:52 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, More comments below. On 11/17/2011 08:29 AM, Dr Mario Kolberg wrote: > Dear Marc, > > many thanks for your review. See below for our responses: > > On 06/11/2011 18:11, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. I waited to base the review on an >> implementation, but unfortunately I never got the time to do so. So this is >> only a partial review. >> >> [...] >> 3. Section 7.2.1 structure definition >> >> The Dictionary type is not defined in this spec. >> >> Also I would suggest to follow the standard convention of using lowercase for >> the character of a field. > Reload defines DictionaryEntry (section 6.2.3). Dictionary is a 'data model' > (section 6.2). But Dictionary is never defined as a data structure in RELOAD, and even if it was defined as an array of DictionaryEntry, that would not match the text ("name-value list of properties...") - the closest structure definition that matches this text in RELOAD would be IceExtension. I would suggest to explicitly define Dictionary as follow: struct { opaque name<0..2^16-1>; opaque value<0..2^16-1>; } DictionaryElement; struct { DictionaryElement elements<0..2^16-1>; } Dictionary; >> 4. Section 7.2.[2-5] >> >> RELOAD message are client/server based. A request is sent and retransmitted >> until a matching response is received. I am sure how the >> Join/JoinAccept/JoinConfirm/JoinDecline mechanism is working inside this >> framework. >> > For Join, JoinAccept and JoinReject are matching responses. But this is not how the RELOAD routing works. RELOAD says that a response uses the code value + 1 of the request, excepted for the ErrorResponse. The problem here is that a standard implementation of RELOAD will not be able to process correctly theses messages. If the goal is to change the routing algorithm, I would suggest to add a ForwardingOption to each message, with the FORWARD_CRITICAL flag set, so standard RELOAD implementations do not even try to route these. [...] - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petithug@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7Odk0ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61dp0wCdF2Znb/RGGPDTBOKxYWqT+U+e H4EAnjP8q8J9yjFCwdaMPy+XVHVuIzUJ =S1qj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… Dr Mario Kolberg
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… John Buford
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… John Buford
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… Buford, John F (John)
- Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-prot… Marc Petit-Huguenin