Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06
review-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06-genart-lc-sparks-2013-05-10-00

Looks good to me. Thanks!


      RjS





      On 5/6/13 3:02 AM, 

mohamed.boucadair at orange.com

 wrote:
















Dear Robert,




 




I updated the document
            to cover the comments you raised. You can check the diff
            available at: 

http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06




 




Cheers,




Med




 













De :

 

dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org


                  [

mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org

] 

De la part de


                  Robert Sparks




Envoyé :

 vendredi 26 avril 2013 17:42




À :

 

dhcwg at ietf.org

; 

ietf at ietf.org

; General Area
                  Review Team;
                  

draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure at tools.ietf.org




Objet :

 [dhcwg] Gen-art review:
                  draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-05










 




I am the
            assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
            


            Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 







<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

.
            





            Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
            comments 


            you may receive. 





            Document: draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-05


            Reviewer:  Robert Sparks


            Review Date: April 26, 2013


            IETF LC End Date: May 6, 2013


            IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013





            Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open
            issues, described in


                  the review.





            Major issues: 





            Overall, this document is solid, but I think there is a bug
            in section 6.3. 


            I could be wrong, but If I'm right, this paragraph:




When retransmission is required, the
            relay may decide to correct the content of
            RECONFIGURE-REQUEST message it issues (e.g., update the
            Client Identifier list).  This decision is local to the
            relay (e.g., it may be based on observed events such as one
            or more clients were reconfigured on their own).





            introduces a race-condition that could lead to an erroneous
            state. If a relay's first message included client A, then
            the retransmission included clients A and B, but that
            retransmission crosses with a success RECONFIGURE-REPLY to
            the request that only included client A, the relay will
            think it succeeded in asking A and B to be reconfigured.





            Minor issues: 





            This sentence:




Furthermore, means to recover state in
            failure events must be supported, but are not discussed in
            this document.




places a requirement on a relay (even
            though it's not using a 2119 MUST). Is there some other
            document that defines this requirement that you can
            reference? If not, the requirement should be discussed in
            this document. Alternatively, you could change the sentence
            to talk about the consequences of not having a proprietary
            means for recovering state.





            Nits/editorial comments: