Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06
review-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06-genart-lc-sparks-2013-05-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2013-05-14 | |
| Requested | 2013-05-02 | |
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Xavier Pougnard | |
| Draft last updated | 2013-05-10 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by
Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Robert Sparks (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-06-genart-lc-sparks-2013-05-10
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2013-05-10 |
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: