[apps-discuss] AppsDir reivew of draft-templin-ironbis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@blackops.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BE121F87E1; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:35:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vnRMOcceDPJw; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from medusa.blackops.org (medusa.blackops.org [208.69.40.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D757D21F8E1A; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from medusa.blackops.org (msk@localhost.blackops.org [127.0.0.1]) by medusa.blackops.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1L8ZD0g078687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:35:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@medusa.blackops.org)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.0 medusa.blackops.org r1L8ZD0g078687
X-SenderID: Sendmail Sender-ID Filter v1.0.0 medusa.blackops.org r1L8ZD0g078687
Authentication-Results: medusa.blackops.org; sender-id=permerror header.from=superuser@gmail.com; spf=none smtp.mfrom=msk@medusa.blackops.org
Received: (from msk@localhost) by medusa.blackops.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r1L8ZCpP078686; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:35:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:35:12 -0800
Message-Id: <201302210835.r1L8ZCpP078686@medusa.blackops.org>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-templin-ironbis.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir reivew of draft-templin-ironbis
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:35:24 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir) reviewer
for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-templin-ironbis-12
Title: The Intradomain Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy
Review Date: February 20, 2013
IETF Last Call Date: January 30, 2013
IESG Telechat Date: February 21, 2013

Summary: This document appears to be ready for evaluation and approval.
However, most of the content exceeds my areas of expertise, so I have
focused only on trying to find those parts that appear likely to affect
applications in a direct way, or on IETF procedural points.

Apologies for the tardiness of the review.

Major Issues: None.  This appears like interesting work, but I infer
from the document's content that most of the work here concerns operations
well below and thus not visible to the application layer.

Minor Issues: The [RO-CR] and [SAMPLE] references don't appear to point to
I-Ds, though they say "Work in Progress".  If they are I-Ds, they should be
named; if not, I don't believe those references are complete.  Where are
they published?

Nits: I couldn't parse the last sentence of Section 10:

   IRON does not otherwise introduce any new issues to complications raised
   for NAT traversal or for applications embedding address referrals
   in their payload.

"issues to complications raised"?