Re: Source Quench NiTs : (draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench-01)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Gorry,

Thanks so much for your feedback. Should I resubmit as draft-ietf once I
address these?

Please find my comments inline...

On 26/01/2011 04:38 p.m., Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Abstract:
> 
> I recommend you add more detail here, saying what documents are updated.

Ok, will do.



> Introduction:
> 
> /The ICMP specification [RFC0792] defines the ICMPv4 Source Quench
>    message (type 4, code 0), which is /
>                                    ^^
> - change to "was", since we now declare this as historic?

Should I put the whole sentence in past tense? i.e. "defined... which was"?


> 
> /for a long time/
> - perhaps we should just say the year - i.e. 1995.

Will do.



> /   This document formally deprecates reaction to ICMP Source Quench
>    messages by transport protocols such as TCP./
> - Should we consider deprecating it for all IPv4 nodes? I think it
> effectively does this, including endpoints that do not constitute
> transports.

Well, the point is that other than the minor updates to RFC1812, this
document formally deprecates the reaction to SQ by TCP -- right now,
e.g. TCP is still required to slow down upon receipt of ICMP SQ.

If others weigh in, and agree on that, I could s/deprecates reaction to
ICMP Source Quench messages by transport protocols such as
TCP/deprecates the use of ICMP Source Quench messages by all IPv4 nodes/.



> Section 3:
> 
> /We hereby/
> - Could we say "This document hereby"...

Will do.



> /message (type 4, code 0), which is /
> - see note on intro.

Ditto -- past tense for the whole thing?



> /[RFC1812] notes that research suggests/.../and formally deprecates/
> - 'noted', 'suggested', and 'deprecated'?

Depending on what's your take for the other instances... but yes, I
think that would sound good to me.



> /the IP layer MAY silently discard it./
> - I support Fred Baker's comment, in "IMHO, any IP system SHOULD ignore
> a source quench that it receives."

The point is that this is a specific update to RFC 1122, which talks
about hosts, not routers.

Thoughts?



> Section 6.:
> 
> - My first thoughts are also that it is good to make this
> "memo" historic (RFC1016). See what others think.

So no changes here, right?

-- FWIW, what's in the current version of the I-D is what I've sensed as
consensus as a result of the discussions on ICMP SQ on this mailing-list.



> References:
> 
> - I'm not sure that [RFC4443] is normative. Please check.

Yes, I think that in this case it could be informative. Will do.



> - Neither RFC 5681 nor RFC3136 mention SQ - do these have to be a
> normative reference?

I think "these are important to understand this document", which would
make them "normative"...

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1