Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-?? Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2017-02-25 IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-02 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Major issues: Minor issues: Section 2.2 states that routing protocols mainly consider link up/down and that "all nodes need a consistent view of the network topology". the first seems an over-generalization, since all routing protocols have metrics, and almost all modern routing protocols carry significant additional information about the links and nodes. The second statement about consistency is true for some protocols, but is not true for external use of BGP nor, as I understand it, for Babel. So it seems again too strong a characterization. The following sentence about information not normally used also seems to be at odds with current practice. Bullet 1 under SN7 in section 2.2 talks about the potential for circular dependence, and then says that this protocol will not provide any assistance for that. given that such dependence may be complex. In particular, given that these dependencies result in separate negotiations, the chain of efforts would continue even if the initial impetus has timed out. If a single negotiation causes two dependent negotiations, this would seem to have the potential to cause a work explosion. It is probably considered obvious, but I did not see text indicating that GRASP messages with unknown MESSAGE_TYPE should be silently ignored. Or any other definition of the expected behavior (should be logged?) Nits/editorial comments: In section 3.1 in the definition of Technical Objective the text starts by saying that it is a configurable parameter or set of parameters. Most further text refers to a single value, with indications that the value may be a complex structure. Hence, in the first part of the definition, the same construction should be used, rather than referring to a set of values. This gets slightly confused when section 3.10.4 goes back to talking about multiple parameters for an objective. Consistency please? The first paragraph of 220.127.116.11 states that upon receiving a discovery request, a recipient will respond, either with the data or with a divert. While this is eventually true, it is misleading. As 18.104.22.168 states, the recipient, if it does not have an answer, will relay the request in order to get an answer. Some mention of this in 22.214.171.124 would seem helpful. Should the first line of 3.5.5 on negotiation include "(using M_REQ_NEG)"?