[xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-01

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 17 May 2016 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBEB12D594 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Yu4F6xo5; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=O5R3nXLF
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3HuvKdgR1DhD for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A55F128B44 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FA2207F8 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 13:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 May 2016 13:26:37 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=1nzq33mCLN/4Bm17tABvPuud3wg =; b=Yu4F6xo5wXgHUYll0HbOeie0+fDcOr6sjDsUqLsEI/12pCBtVm9tce5+ycD /PwuICxFPKFLzBZ+72vC1vYElcCdkG0f3e/FP0Pp6q6Ia8MPAtoBdNeIbOM8hd4m LGzP7hRhAuaHyI1MoTVsAulrhcv5M7qCyxMNrmp/G1TSpM6Y=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=1n zq33mCLN/4Bm17tABvPuud3wg=; b=O5R3nXLFsN14AlAz/Z1wtBPbYrnZiE61HK hnu0dw2Mx9u5kjywl4fbGVxJr7FnRQEEtCkf/CD/hnWkZ1AhMUs3I1uGpR27mFOR dEGBJZDrfqjSk8PDSl1KQjZKvyVXit1b1SN+Rn0fqXVrC1vNUU5IDv+g8Ceo7cd0 XgxOCBS7w=
X-Sasl-enc: jhak7yCKdwSjAafXrppPAvKUV7ueZ/qqqMXb//JwwIBm 1463505997
Received: from dhcp-171-68-20-85.cisco.com (dhcp-171-68-20-85.cisco.com []) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A76A6801AD for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 13:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DF569CB9-5CCA-4902-9B62-49B2FFF00D3B"
Message-Id: <78605AD7-F16C-47F0-AD97-334A4E7B7E70@cooperw.in>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:26:42 -0700
To: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/2_uVuBHV8J0oSAv-0TVxRKpe0Z4>
Subject: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-01
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xrblock/>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:26:40 -0000

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. Overall it looks good. I have just one question I’d like to discuss before issuing the LC.

Both RFC 6958 and RFC 7002 mention security considerations that are not mentioned in this document. But it seems like similar considerations apply to this block. Why are these not discussed in Section 7?

There are also a few nits that should be resolved together with any last call comments:

= Section 1.1 =

s/the method used to distinguish between bursts and gaps shall use/the method used to distinguish between bursts and gaps uses/

= Section 2 =

In retrospect it would have been nice to have all of these terms defined once in one document that the other documents could have referred to. Not sure it makes sense to change course now, although it seems you could just refer to the definitions in RFC 7003 rather than repeating them here.

= Section 4 =

s/the burst and gap duration shall be determined as if/the burst and gap duration is determined as if/

= Section 6.3 =