Stephane, Thank you very much for your comments.
Tony On Jan 22, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:18:03AM -0800, > Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > >> Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review >> and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. > > I've read the documents (except the IPv4-specific ones) and I believe > they are mostly complete and clearly explain how ILNP works. > > There is just one thing which seems to be absent: I do not find > clearly stated how are the identifier and locator stored in the IPv6 > packet. From some paragraphs, I guess the locator use the high-order > 64 bits of the IPv6 address and the identifier the low-order bits but > I was not able to find it clearly written. > > Another point is more a detail: the documents seem to mandate that > there is a state in the machine for every ILNP correspondent (the > ILCC). This is no problem for a HTTP server (there is already the TCP > state) but more problematic for active authoritative DNS servers: > today, they are able to sustain a very high activity because they have > absolutely zero state. May be the ILCC could be made optional for > stateless servers? (There is no need to receive locator updates for > the ultra-short transactions of the DNS.) > > Otherwise, there is a typo in the references, > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in > the docs (no 'v'). _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
