Hi Alvaro, I just submitted a new version, and this comment has been solved.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-21 Best Regards! -Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: P2PSIP [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Songhaibin (A) > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:21 AM > To: Alvaro Retana (aretana); Alissa Cooper > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; IESG; Barry Leiba; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Alvaro, > > Thanks. And agree with the suggested text and place for it. > > Best Regards! > -Haibin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:12 AM > > To: Songhaibin (A); Alissa Cooper > > Cc: Roni Even; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; > > IESG; [email protected]; Barry Leiba > > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > On 2/24/16, 10:10 PM, "iesg on behalf of Songhaibin (A)" > > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Haibin: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > >I did the editing job and have submitted a new version of the > > >document according to the comments received and the discussion in the > > >list. I also add some text in the change history appendix for it. > > >Please check if the updated version has addressed your comments. > > > > > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-20 > > > > I think that the text added in 4.3 maybe needs a little word-smithing > > (see below for a suggestion), and I think it should be in a more > > prominent place (I suggest > > 4.1) because the issue is not specific to Path_Track. > > Otherwise I think it's ok. > > > > >I keep the intended status of the document as it is. Alvaro thought > > >Experimental might be a better status, when I check the change > > >history in the document, as it is defined as a mandatory RELOAD > > >extension, the current intended status seems suitable. Otherwise we > > >need go through another WGLC to change the intended status. > > > > I don't think a new WGLC would be needed (or IETF LC for that matter) > > since it was already approved at a "higher" maturity level. I also > > don't think we need to belabor this point much longer. > > > > I will clear my DISCUSS. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Alvaro. > > > > > > Suggested text update: > > > > OLD> > > One important thing is that, this document does not guarantee what it > > conveys must be the information that caused the previous failures, > > but with the retrieved information from the previous traversed nodes > > (with high probability they are, as it cannot guarantee the exact > > same path), a user or machine can analyze and infer what is the > > problem. Symmetric routing is achieved by the Via List as defined in > > [RFC6940] (whatever DHT routing algorithms are used), but response > > message could go through not exactly the same path as there still can > > be node failures during that very short period. And there can also > > be lack of accurate path informaiton of the previously failed > > message. > > > > > > NEW> > > It is important to note that the mechanisms described in this document > > do not guarantee that the information collected is in fact related to > > the previous failures. However, using the information from previous > > traversed nodes, the user (or management system) may be able to infer > > the problem. Symmetric routing can be achieved by using the Via List > > [RFC6940] (or an alternate DHT routing algorithm), but the response > > path is not guaranteed to be the same. > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
