[Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07
Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 26 September 2011 20:46 UTC
Return-Path: <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3263D1F0CFE for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 gG+hGUpqz09z for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth.b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2658A1F0CFB for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 250.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.254.250]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>) id 1R8I6t-0005nX-FA; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:49:07 +0100
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:54:57 +0100
Message-Id: <1317070497.25526.9382.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:46:28 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 26 Sept 2011 IETF LC End Date: 26 Sept 2011 IESG Telechat date: (if known) 6 Oct 2011 Summary: Nearly ready for the IESG. There are some minor issues that should be addressed plus a number of nits. The main problems that I see are the lack of clarity on what an RTR Frame actually is and the need for IANA registries for DDP stream session codes and error codes which are now spread over at least two documents each. Major issues: Minor issues: s1: The terms active side and passive side are not explicitly defined in RFC 5044 but are used as synonyms for the Initiator and Responder which are. This connection and the Initiator/Responder terminology needs to be reproduced in this doc. s1.1: Where is the RTR frame defined? I can't find any explicit specification of what an RTR frame looks like in either this document or any of the existing RFC 504x documents. Is s9.2 supposed to be the definition? ss6, 7 and 9: Not So Private Data: What happens if some other update decides it needs to do the same trick with putting some not really private data in the private data field? Might be worth putting a note about (say) ordering flag bits and chunks of data. s7: Given that DDP Stream Session codes are now defined in multiple docs (RFC 5043 and this one), an IANA registry is probably needed. s8: Given that error codes are now defined in two documents, an IANA registry is probably needed. s10: Para 1 and para 4 are possibly contradictory. Presumably it is legitimate for an enhanced responder to choose to behave like an unenhanced responder if there is some good reason for this (e.g. the application doesn't want to do enhanced. As para 4 stands it is impossible for an enhanced responder to behave as unenhanced even though the initiator has the choice. s11: See comments on s7 and s8 above. New registries may be required. Nits/editorial comments: Abstract: Various acronyms need expansion (RDMA, MPA) and s/RFC50/RFC 50/g s1: Should probably reference RFC 5041 which is the key specification for RDDP if I understand correctly. s1, para 1: Maybe.. s/Marker protocol Data Unit PDU/Marker Protocol Data Unit (PDU)/ s1, 4th bullet point: > If accepting, the passive side ULP submits its acceptance of the > connection request. This local accept operation... It is unclear whether this text is referring to things that are done in the Responder or sent in the protocol response (or indeed both). This needs to be made easier to parse. Titles of s1.1 and s1.2: s/from/affecting/ s4.1. near end of next to last para: s/uses ORD strictly to limit/uses ORD to strictly limit/ s4.3: Need to expand MPI acronym. s4.4.3, para 2: s/necessarily generates/necessarily generate/ s5, para 6: > The local interface SHOULD require the ULP to explicitly configure... Is this actually a protocol requirement? Presumably the default is the situation before this draft is implemented (i.e. no explicit RTR). In order for the explicit RTR to be useful, the interface has to provide a way for ULPs to request it. So I *think* this should be The local interface MUST (or perhaps 'needs to') provide a way for a ULP to request the use of explicit RTR messages. s7: As with Section 6 and as noted in Section 9, the new private data has to be first in the private data field. s9: Need to specify how IRD and ORD are encoded (presumably 14 bit unsigned integer, network bit order).
- [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-… Elwyn Davies