Thanks for your re-review. Authors, could you send me OLD/NEW edits for
David's remaining issues? I'd like to include them in the RFC Editor
notes, as your draft might be approved tomorrow... Assuming you agree,
of course.
jari
[email protected] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-11
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: January 27, 2009
IESG Telechat date: January 29, 2009
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.
Comments:
This draft has apparently been through the proverbial wringer;
my previous Gen-ART review of it was in September 2008 at version
-06, and the draft is now at version -11 four months later for
IESG consideration.
The original Gen-ART review identified a number of items, not all
of which have been addressed, and called out Transport concerns
around use of TCP vs. UDP and usage aspects of UDP as open issues
that needed to be addressed. This was reinforced by a lengthy
"Discuss" encompassing these and additional transport topics from
one of the Transport ADs, Lars Eggert.
The changes to address Transport issues have covered the key open
issues raised by my previous Gen-ART review:
- UDP rate limiting is now a "SHOULD" requirement.
- The source of RTT estimates has been specified.
- TCP is recommended (SHOULD) for IS messages where size
creates fragmentation concerns and low latency (that
would otherwise favor UDP) is not a requirement.
Lars has changed his "Discuss" to "No Objection" based on changes
since the -06 version to address issues including the above three.
The following nits should be corrected in the -11 version:
(a) The following paragraph at the end of Section 5 should also be
summarized or referred to in the Security Considerations section:
It should be noted that authorization of a MN to use a specific MoS
server is neither in scope of this document nor is currently
specified in [IEEE80221]. We further assume all devices can access
discovered MoS. In case future deployments will implement
authorization policies the mobile nodes should fall back to other
learned MoS if authorization is denied.
(b) The 3rd paragraph in Section 6.1 should also prohibit (MUST NOT)
use of MIH layer fragmentation with TCP, as there are no MTU limits
on message size when TCP is used.
(c) The end of the last paragraph of Section 6.1 needs to be rewritten.
OLD:
(It should be noted that [RFC4960] addresses both of these
problems, but discussion of it is omitted here due to the
lack of running code)
NEW:
(It should be noted that SCTP [RFC4960] addresses both of
these problems, but discussion of SCTP is omitted here, as
it is generally not used for the mobility serviced discussed
in this document.)
idnits 2.11.01 ran clean - no errors or warnings.
Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
