Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Connection Establishment
draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-09
Yes
(David Harrington)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
David Harrington Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-05)
Unknown
Readable document, thank you. RDMA is not a "well known" acronym at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt You should expand it in the Abstract and Introduction. (You might also want to lobby the RFC Editor to get it made "well known" MPA will also need expansion in the Abstract. --- FULPDU: Framed Upper Layer Protocol PDU How many letter Ps?
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-04)
Unknown
- The abstract uses the asconyms MPA and RDMA without expansion, it'd be better not to do that and generally many acronyms are used before being expanded - a pass to fix that would be useful - The security considerations section says that this changes nothing compared to RFC 5044, however, I guess that a peer could try a DoS against another peer by setting large xRD values, but I don't know if that's significant enough to warrant a mention or not. Is it? If it were, then I guess just a warning that implementations ought to have some kind of sanity checking on those inputs would suffice. - Just out of curiosity - RFCs 5043 and 5044 seem to say: "if you want security, do IPsec" - is that how things are actually deployed?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown