Thanks Ben, we'll attend to your points. > -- section 5, 2nd paragraph: "Specifically, the specification [ ] states..." > > Is that an intentional Tom Swiftie? :-)
No, it's definitely definitive. I had to look up Tom Swiftie Wikipedially. Regards Brian On 01/10/2013 11:28, Ben Campbell wrote: > 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-intarea-flow-label-balancing-01 > > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2013-09-30 > IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-30 > > Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational > RFC. I have some minor and editorial comments that may be worth considering > prior to publication. > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > -- General: > > Is this draft intended only to apply to HTTP load balancers, or is it generic > to any application protocol? I think you intend the 2nd, but there's quite a > bit of HTTP specific text throughout. If that's correct, it might be helpful > to explicitly mention it, or to make the HTTP specific parts more generic. > (e.g. "application-layer proxy" vs "HTTP proxy".) > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- general: > > I personally find it easier to read and understand drafts that use the TCP/IP > architecture layer names rather than OSI numbers. The names have more > intrinsic meaning, and since we are talking about TCP/IP architecture stuff, > that model seems to fit better. > > -- section 1, 1st paragraph: > > It might be helpful to actually define "load distribution" and/or "load > balancing". > > -- section 2, 1st paragraph: > > I got a little confused by the reference locations. In particular, I expected > the citation at the end of the first sentence to point to the flow label > spec, not IPv6 in general. I think it would be more clear to add the 6437 > reference immediately after the first occurrence of "IPv6 flow label", and > remove "... and it is defined in [RFC6437]" from the second sentence. > > -- section 3, first bullet list item: > > Is it worth mentioning SRV here? > > -- section 3, 3rd bullet list item: > > -- is "raw HTTP" the same as "plaintext HTTP"? > > -- section 3, 4th bullet: 2nd sentence: > > Please expand ECMP. > > -- "According to the specific scenario, it will spread new sessions..." > > I suggest "Depending on the specific scenario..." > > The antecedent for "it" is slightly ambiguous. > > The use of the term "spread" makes it sound like a given session might get > spread across multiple destinations. Maybe something along the lines of > "assign new sessions to specific destinations across..." > > -- " 'Persistance' is defined as guaranteeing that..." > > s/ guaranteeing/"the guarantee" > > -- "... run to completion on a specific server" > > Would it be more precise to say that all packets for a particular session are > delivered to the same server? > > -- section 3, bullet list nested in numbered list shortly before the diagram: > > Please put blank lines between the list entries. > > -- section 3, preamble to diagram: > > What is a "maximum layout"? > > -- section 3, last paragraph: > > Can you elaborate on why usage by proxies is unlikely to be cost effective? I > can guess why, but it would be better to say it explicitly rather than > leaving the reader to draw the conclusion. > > -- section 4, last item in bullet list: > > You say that forwarding the flow label has no performance benefit. That may > be true locally for the proxy, but if a load balancer exists between the > proxy and the server, there may be an overall benefit. > > -- section 4, first paragraph after bullet list: > > You assert that logic for handling extension headers can be omitted. I assume > you mean from the actual program flow for the specific case, not from the > code altogether, right? You would still need that logic for the zero value > flow label case, wouldn't you? > > -- section 4, last paragraph, last sentence: > > s/ "statistical assumption" / "assumption that label collisions will be > statistically rare" > > -- section 5, 2nd paragraph: "Specifically, the specification [ ] states..." > > Is that an intentional Tom Swiftie? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
