Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-00

"John Buford" <buford@samrg.org> Fri, 25 November 2011 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <buford@samrg.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 0180D1F0C4B for <sam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:31:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 fLDjLsel-UH4 for <sam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy3.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FE131F0C34 for <sam@irtf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13474 invoked by uid 0); 25 Nov 2011 06:31:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host181.hostmonster.com) (74.220.207.181) by oproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2011 06:31:28 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samrg.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=Ucn2e2jGOIjUGYWWawlZ1CirQYePdO5bb8oiXK77FPc=; b=e2vyCbLKtoVjesDA+Qn9HHZOU4T/nsj/BXWZ0WffFFkP8L/CA1tbgwRuZTIeUt6YN8wblPav/gJnPaNcn9ePXlz8FJ21HnYRmWl6Kv5q8kck4BEWV6Dk5JihiRQEMBbJ;
Received: from [216.80.63.2] (helo=AGILON) by host181.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <buford@samrg.org>) id 1RTpJn-0005rX-M8; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:31:27 -0700
From: "John Buford" <buford@samrg.org>
To: "'Marc Petit-Huguenin'" <petithug@acm.org>, "'Dr Mario Kolberg'" <mko@cs.stir.ac.uk>
References: <4EB6CDEE.6020408@acm.org> <4EC53685.7080801@cs.stir.ac.uk> <4ECE764E.1040202@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <4ECE764E.1040202@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:31:26 -0500
Message-ID: <004801ccab3b$dcb632d0$96229870$@org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcyqyZAe3RR+wvP+TECADdcYNyrI5QABqbLg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {2055:host181.hostmonster.com:samrgorg:samrg.org} {sentby:smtp auth 216.80.63.2 authed with buford@samrg.org}
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: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:31:35 -0000

Agree with the dictionary definition suggestion.

For the JoinRequest => JoinAccept,JoinReject 3-some,
we could do JoinRequest => JoinResponse with sub-types for the response
Accept,Reject

I wasn't aware that all message routing required an encoded "+1" response.

Thanks for suggestions.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: sam-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:sam-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Marc
Petit-Huguenin
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:52 AM
To: Dr Mario Kolberg
Cc: sam
Subject: Re: [SAM] Review of draft-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-00

-----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 mailing list
SAM@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sam