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 | |
I-D 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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
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: