Telechat Review of draft-cardenas-dff-14
review-cardenas-dff-14-genart-telechat-romascanu-2013-03-27-00

Request Review of draft-cardenas-dff
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-03-26
Requested 2013-02-28
Authors Ulrich Herberg, Alvaro Cardenas, Tadashige Iwao, Michael Dow, Sandra Cespedes
Draft last updated 2013-03-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Dan Romascanu
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Paul Hoffman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-cardenas-dff-14-genart-telechat-romascanu-2013-03-27
Reviewed rev. 14
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-03-27

Review
review-cardenas-dff-14-genart-telechat-romascanu-2013-03-27

Hi Ulrich,

I apologize for the late response but travel and holidays intervened. 

The updated version answers all my concerns, and thank you for addressing these and for the improved specification. 

I have only one clarification question to ask, related to your answers:

> >6. In section 9.2 - what happened if when adding a new Processed Tuple
> >based on a new incoming packet the routing discovers that the
> >P_seq_number is already in used for another entry in the list. This can
> >happen, as the sequence numbers are unique per routers, and current
> >packets may originate from different routers? Is this not a problem?
> Why?
> 
> That would not be a problem as for each packet, existing tuples are
> searched using *both*
> +  P_orig_address = the Originator Address of the current Packet,
>           AND;
>        +  P_seq_number = the sequence number of the current Packet.
> 
> 
> So a tuple with same P_seq_number but different P_orig_address would not
> be returned

Is the algorithm clarified some place in the specification, and I could not find it? If such explanation existed it would have answered my concern from start, maybe I missed it. If this is not clearly stated, maybe adding such an explanation would be useful. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulrich Herberg [

mailto:uherberg

 at us.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:29 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); gen-art at ietf.org
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); smartnetpro-iwao_std at ml.css.fujitsu.com;
> m.dow at freescale.com; scespedes at icesi.edu.co; Alvaro Cardenas; Ted Lemon
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09
> 
> Dan,
> 
> thank you very much for your review. I tried to address your comments,
> and have submitted a new revision just now:
> 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cardenas-dff-10


> See below:
>