An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Direct Response Routing
draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my Discuss questions, which were (just tor the record):

I'm looking at http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11.txt and seeing a lot of duplication between these drafts. That could be OK, although some protocol machinery looks like it's defined in both drafts (for instance, 0x08 IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING), but what I hoped to see is some discussion of RPR versus DRR - when you implement RELOAD, does it make sense to pick either RPR or DDR, and then fall back to SSR, or would you expect anyone to implement both SRR and RPR, or even attempt both in succession before falling back to SSR? I would guess that attempting DDR (directly route the reply), then attempting RPR (route using a relay), and only then falling back to SSR would make sense. Is there any guidance you can give?

You'll notice I'm a coauthor on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-05, so if you tell me "there's no energy for new text", I'll believe you, but I wanted to ask ...

Original Comment:

In Section 2, it would be helpful to me, to include a description of RPR. I know that's described in another specification, but RPR is referenced throughout this one.

[Ballot comment]

- DRR involves sending the client IP address out to the
network. Is that different from base RELOAD? If so, then
that privacy-relevant difference should be noted, but I've
not had time to check the base RELOAD (this would be a
DISCUSS if I had time to check and figured that it is
different). Is this a new consideration?

- Could checking for DRR, but then falling back to SRR,
involve sending out the client IP address in a way
different from base RELOAD? (Same as above, no time to
check, sorry;-)

- The diff [1] between this and RPR is interesting. There
are common bits of specification but its not clear to me
which RFC will be normative, e.g. for the
IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING flag. That doesn't seem like a good
plan, but I'm not sure what'd be best to do about it.

  [1] http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11&url2=draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11.txt

[Ballot comment]
In section 1, last paragraph:

  networks.  An extension to RELOAD to support DRR is proposed in
  Section 6.  Some optional methods to check peer connectivity are

I think you should say "defined" rather than "proposed", to avoid misunderstandings.  This is consistent with the text in section 6.

Why don't tables 1 and 2 also list performance for SRR+DTLS?

Also, probably a naive question, with DTLS+DRR, is every message after the first sent directly from the sending peer to the destination peer?  This seems obvious—if DRR succeeded, why not?  But it's never mentioned in the document, so perhaps I am missing something?

[Ballot discuss]
I have no general objections to the publication of the draft but a few relative
easy points to fix:

First a procedural question about adding flags to the ForwardingOption:
Apparently this draft adds a new value to the flags in the ForwardingOption header. However, there is no registry that keeps track of the flags in any coordinated way. Is this intentional?

Second, which of the RPR or DRR draft is creating the new flag?

Section 4.2., paragraph 2:

>    According to base draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base], SRR MUST be
>    supported.  An overlay MAY be configured to use alternative routing
>    algorithms, and alternative routing algorithms MAY be selected on a
>    per-message basis.  I.e., a node in an overlay which supports SRR and
>    some other routing algorithm, for example DRR, might use SRR some of
>    the time and DRR some of the time.  A node joining the overlay should
>    get from the configuration file the preferred routing mode.  If an
>    overlay runs within a private network and all peers in the system can
>    reach each other directly, peers MAY send most of the transactions
>    with DRR.  On the contrary, using DRR SHOULD be discouraged in the

  Same point as for the RPR draft: Is "SHOULD be discouraged" actually
  meaning "SHOULD NOT be used in the open Internet"?

[Ballot comment]
For the whole of Section 5:
  This reads like something for the appendix of the document, as it
  is not mandatory and solely provides further information other than
  protocol specification.

Section 6.2.1., paragraph 1:

>    RELOAD allows intermediate peers to maintain state in order to
>    implement SRR, for example for implementing hop-by-hop
>    retransmission.  If DRR is used, the response will not follow the
>    reverse path, and the state in the intermediate peers will not be
>    cleared until such state expires.  In order to address this issue, we
>    propose a new flag, state-keeping flag, in the message header to
>    indicate whether the state keeping is required in the intermediate
>    peers.

  I assume your reference to the "message header" refers to "Forwarding
  Option"? Better to clarify it here.

The terminology in 6.4., similar to the RPR draft, could be better explained/defined. I.e., what is the sending peer, requesting peer, etc.

Section 9.1., paragraph 1:

>    A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option
>    Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].

  Better say "to be added in RELOAD Forwarding Option Registry under REsource
  LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD).

[Ballot discuss]
I expect to ballot YES on this draft, but wanted to ask a question first ...

I'm looking at http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-11.txt and seeing a lot of duplication between these drafts. That could be OK, although some protocol machinery looks like it's defined in both drafts (for instance, 0x08 IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING), but what I hoped to see is some discussion of RPR versus DRR - when you implement RELOAD, does it make sense to pick either RPR or DDR, and then fall back to SSR, or would you expect anyone to implement both SRR and RPR, or even attempt both in succession before falling back to SSR? I would guess that attempting DDR (directly route the reply), then attempting RPR (route using a relay), and only then falling back to SSR would make sense. Is there any guidance you can give?

You'll notice I'm a coauthor on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-05, so if you tell me "there's no energy for new text", I'll believe you, but I wanted to ask ...

[Ballot comment]
In Section 2, it would be helpful to me, to include a description of RPR. I know that's described in another specification, but RPR is referenced throughout this one.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-10.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions which must be completed.

First, the authors request that: "A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].

Type: 0x02 - extensive_routing_mode"

IANA understands that the same request has been made in [ I-D.ietf-p2psip-rpr ]. IANA will ensure that the request to add this forwarding option is completed upon approval of [ I-D.ietf-p2psip-rpr ].

Second, in the ns subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new URI is to be added to the registry as follows:

ID: p2p:route-mode
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:p2p:route-mode
Filename: ns/p2p/route-mode.txt
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An extension to RELOAD to support Direct Response Routing) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation
Protocol WG (p2psip) to consider the following document:
- 'An extension to RELOAD to support Direct Response Routing'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-09-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document proposes an optional extension to RELOAD to support
  direct response routing mode.  RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive
  routing for routing messages.  The new optional extension provides a
  shorter route for responses reducing the overhead on intermediate
  peers and describes the potential cases where this extension can be
  used.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-drr/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

An extension to RELOAD to support Direct Response Routing (draft-ietf-p2psip-drr-07)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to draft-ietf-p2psip-base, which also has an intended status of Proposed Standard.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive routing for routing messages. An optional extesion that can be used to provide shorter routes for responses (reducing the overhead on intermediate nodes) consists in supporting a direct response routing mode. This defines the required extension as well as describes potential use cases where it can be used.

Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting.

Document Quality:

The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J. Bernardos.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Carlos J. Bernardos

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Gonzalo Camarillo

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has personally done a thorough review of the document. Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is WG consensus behind this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

There are no nits. The automatic nits detection tool detects 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses, but I could
not find them, so I guess it is a detection mistake.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document meets the review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document defines a new RELOAD Forwarding Option type. The IANA registry is defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base], Forwarding Option Registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No formal language segments exist.