[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [manet] comments on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-04.txt
Thanks again, and inline comments >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com]
Sent: 12 July 2007 19:21
To: manet
Subject: [manet] comments on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-04.txt
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Comments on this draft follow. By way of disclaimer,
these comments are not to be considered as endorsement
of the protocol's correctness and/or its applicability
for any use-cases.
Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com
1) (semi-substantial) Section 1, first sentence, reference
for "MANET" should be draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-04.txt
(which in turn cites RFC2501).
>>> We haven't done this, because this is Standards Track,
>>> and that's still only an ID. If it were an RFC (i.e.
>>> been accepted) I'd happily reference it. But I'm not
>>> sure right now. This we will need to discuss.
2) (substantial) Section 2, definitions for {interface, MANET
interface, link, symmetric link} need to be squared with
draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-04.txt. In particular, there is
a tension between "link" as "a communications facility at a
layer below IP..." (per [MANETARCH], RFCs 2460/2461/2753, etc.),
and "link" as a neighboring relationship between nodes (per this
document) that needs to be harmonized.
Specific suggestion for "link" is:
"Link
A communications facility at a layer below IP, over which nodes
exchange IP packets directly without decrementing IP TTL (Hop
Limit) [MANETARCH]. A pairwise link (aka an adjacency) is said
to exists between two nodes X and Y if at least one node is
heard by the other on the underlying communications facility.
The term "link" in this document is therefore used to refer to
the pairwise links between two nodes unless otherwise noted."
>>> This one I want to think about. But I don't feel that we
>>> automatically have to follow manetarch if it causes us
>>> problems here. And that's much too detailed for how we
>>> need the word here, and is inconsistent with it - that
>>> definition has a link between nodes, we have (and must
>>> have) a link as between MANET interfaces.
3) (semi-substantial) Section 4.1, second bullet, "links to this
MANET interface" makes no sense, because an interface is a node's
attachment to a link; not vice-versa. Change to: "links associated
with this MANET interface".
>>> That's not right, because it loses the "to". We only record
>>> links which are to us, or to and from us (or lost examples
>>> thereof).
4) (comment) Section 5.1.1, should: "HELLO_INTERVAL" be called:
"HELLO_MAX_INTERVAL" instead?
>>> No. Too cumbersome, and HELLO_INTERVAL isn't just the
>>> maximum, in normal operation when nothing is changing
>>> it is the HELLO interval.
5) (semi-substantial) Section 5.1.1, last paragraph, the term
"responsive" is not previously defined and its use here seems
ambiguous, e.g., what exactly is a "responsive HELLO message"?
The term is used in 4 places throughout the document and seems
ambiguous in all 4. Suggest adding "responsive" to terminology.
>>> See Section 4.3.1, second and third bullets.
6) (semi-editorial) Section 6, last sentence of first paragraph,
change: "Two addresses" to: "Two identical addresses".
>>> I see your point, but that actual change doesn't work for
>>> me, as at this point what is "identical"? I think if it's
>>> necessary to change that sentence (borderline in my
>>> opinion) that's not the change I'd make.
7) (semi-substantial) Section 7, change: "links to that MANET
interface" to: "links associated with that MANET interface".
(Same comment as 3) above.)
>>> And see my comment above.
8) (semi-editorial) Section 7, final sentence, same comment
as 6) above.
>>> Ditto.
9) (semi-substantial) Section 15, if this document is to go as
standards-track, "proposed" should be changed to: "recommended".
>>> Thanks.
10) (comment) Section 15.1, does the recommended HELLO_INTERVAL
(HELLO_MAX_INTERVAL?) of 2 seconds relate in any way to the
expected characteristics of the underlying communications
facility? If so, maybe add a sentence saying so.
>>> It must (which is I think why we have had the proposed there).
>>> There should be something.
11) (semi-substantial) Section 17, add [MANETARCH] as normative
reference.
>>> See above, I'm not entirely happy with this.
(end of comments)
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet