Thank you again, Carlos. Here is my feedback to you document shepherd review. I also had an email discussion with my co-authors.
Most of the comments are editorial and I agree on them. I copied the comments which are not editorial with my feedback below. Section 2: What does "compatible" mean here? Also, depending on the discussion we are going to have about -concepts in the WG, it might be needed to remove this ref. [Haibin] We will just use the word "use" instead of "compatible". We can remove this reference to the -concepts, and will refer to the -base document because it has definitions for terminologies we need. Section 5.1.3: How is congestion measured? How are these 4 bits used? This should be explained more carefullt, especially to ensure interoperability/compatibility, as not all the nodes might report/measure in the same way [Haibin] I agree this is a problem. But this document is not going to provide a measurement method for the congestion. I feel that a node can contemplate its CPU/Memory/Bandwidth usage percentage in the past seconds and normalize the highest value to the range [0x00, 0x0F], we can just reserve the bits and leave it for this purpose, but it will be defined in a future draft. Section 5.1.4, paragraph 2: Remove this part, and/or bring it to the list to discuss what to do about it. [Haibin] We will remove it. Section 5.5.2, paragraph 3: Does this spec requires clock synchronization? (or adds more requirements on this aspect compared to -base) Some text clarifying this issue would be helpful [Haibin} I think here we need a decision from the WG. We need careful consideration on how to use the timestamp because time synchronization is a barrier in open Internet environment, while in a managed environment, it may be less of a problem. Do we want to enforce the time synchronization or do we want to lose a feature to check the message expiration? We have to make a choice. Section 7: I think this section is repetitive (the same content is in 10.6). I'd remove it from here and leve it in 10.6 [Haibin] ok. BR, -Haibin -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 7:20 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics Hi, I've performed a Document Shepherd review of draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics. My review is attached to this e-mail (I added comments to the PDF version of the draft, hope this is fine). I'd like authors to go through the comments before sending the document to the IESG. There might be some issues that need to be brought to the WG for discussion. Thanks, Carlos _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
