Draft reviews
Sébastien Barré <sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be> Tue, 12 February 2008 13:39 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-shim6@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-shim6-archive-oY2iet1p@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-shim6-archive-oY2iet1p@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2088E28C139 for <ietfarch-shim6-archive-oY2iet1p@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:39:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 dgVvF4376PVf for <ietfarch-shim6-archive-oY2iet1p@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8846728C25E for <shim6-archive-oY2iet1p@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:39:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-shim6@psg.com>) id 1JOv7I-0004Oe-8u for shim6-data@psg.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:24:08 +0000
Received: from [130.104.5.77] (helo=smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be>) id 1JOv7F-0004OJ-5S for shim6@psg.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:24:06 +0000
Received: from [130.104.228.52] (unknown [130.104.228.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: sbarre@smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP for <shim6@psg.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:24:01 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <47B19E0A.3030702@uclouvain.be>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:24:26 +0100
From: Sébastien Barré <sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: shim6@psg.com
Subject: Draft reviews
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: Authenticated,
X-MailScanner-ID: BA4551C57DF.301F0
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Sender: owner-shim6@psg.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi, While writing the shim6-impl draft, I have noted some minor things with the drafts. Most of them are editorial comments, I have found also some may/must/should conflicts. Comments about shim6-proto-09,failure-detection-10, locator-pair-selection-02 and multihome-shim-api are detailed below. regards, Sébastien. draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt ----------------------------------------------- Section 5.6 : ULID pair : ... addresses in the IPv6 header does not match -> do not match CGA PDS : ...so the receiver...-> so that the receiver Section 5.15 : C : critical, One if the parameter is critical, and MUST be recognized by the recipient -> I don't think this is a MUST in the sense of RFC2119, since currently no option is defined as critical. The draft thus specifies as an "absolute requirement of the specification" something that does not exist yet. I would say that this may be rather a "must" of a given implementation, and as such I just would prefer to see it in lowercase. Section 5.15.3 (at the end) : a of a 1 octet flag field followed... -> a sequence of a 1 octet ... Section 7.1 : ...cycle through the unstrucutred -> unstructured Section 7.2 : different than the ULID -> different from the ULID Section 7.6 : I would add a pointer to section 7.15 : "A more detailed description of what should be done to detect confusions is given in section 7.15" Section 7.15 : Forked Intance Identifier different than the ones... -> are different from the ones... Section 7.15 : Conflicting MAY and MUST with section 7.6 : 7.6 says "The requirement is that the old context which used the context tag MUST be removed" while 7.15 says "the host MUST NOT use the old context, it MAY just discard the old context." Section 8 : with an payload extension header -> with a payload... Section 11 : Then it there is also no effect -> Then there is also... Section 12.1 : for reachability detection porpuses -> purposes Section 12.2 : for packets that does not have -> that do not have Section 12.3 : it checks that the neither the ->it check that neither the... Section 12.3 : I think that the checksum should be verified _after_ the length field, since this field is used by the checksum verification procedure. Failing to do that could result in reading memory areas past the end of the IPv6 packet. Section 12.3 : Conflicting SHOULD and MUST with section 5.15 : 5.15 says "If a host receives an option that it does not understand and If C=1 then the host SHOULD send back a Shim6 Error Message with Error Code=1..." while 12.3 says "If there is any option in the message with C=1 that isn't known to the host, the host MUST send a Shim6 Error Message with Error Code=1...". Section 15.1 : it recommended -> it is recommended Section 15.2 : §1 : the presudoheader -> pseudoheader Section 15.2 : §2 : ...the next header header -> the next header Section 15.2 : §3 : unless they implement are able -> unless they are able draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-10.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 3.3 : §5 : explicit rechability tests -> reachability Section 4.1 : "Nodes SHOULD employ techniques listed in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 to track the local situation." : These two sections are already completely covered by MUST/MAY statements. IMHO this creates a SHOULD/MUST/MAY conflict between section 3.1/3.2 and 4.1. Section 4.1, item 5 : "REAP keepalive packets SHOULD continue to be sent at the Keepalive Interval until either a data packet in the SHIM6 context has been received from the peer or the Keepalive Timeout expires" : I would replace "has been received from" with "has been sent to" Section 4.2 : §4 : so that the ULP SHOULD be informed -> thus the ULP SHOULD be informed. Section 5.1 and 5.2 : The same field has name Reserved1 for keepalive and Reserved for Probe. Probably it should also be Reserved1 for probe (since the probe has a Reserved2 field as well). Section 5.1 and 5.2 : Strange use of the MUST statement regarding the Reserved* fields : All those fields MUST be ignored on receipt, but only the Reserved2 field of the probe message MUST be set to 0 upon transmission. I would replace this MUST with the usual 'It is set to 0 ...' draft-ietf-shim6-locator-pair-selection-02.txt --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.2 : a locator pair is know to be...-> is known to be draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-03.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Section 1 : §5 : a singed integer of... -> a signed integer -- Sébastien Barré Researcher, CSE department, UCLouvain, Belgium http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/sbarre
- Draft reviews Sébastien Barré
- Re: Draft reviews marcelo bagnulo braun