Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - section 3a.: what kind of crypto processing overhead would make a node unresponsive? Seems a bit odd to me. - 4.1: the para that starts with "The diagnostic information can only be provided to authorized nodes." seems pointless to me and could be deleted. - 5.3: STATUS_INFO - I don't get the benefit of half-specifying a thing like this; PROCESS_POWER is also under specified. - 5.3, SOFTWARE_VERSION etc: providing this information ought not be on by default - even if the overlay config calls for it to be available to node X each node can and should decide itself whether or not to send. While you do say (in 6.3 and 7 and 8) that nodes need to check that the requestor is authorized to get this information, I think you ought also say that the default is to not send. (This is not a discuss because I think you have enough of those;-) _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
