Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-25
review-ietf-manet-dlep-25-genart-lc-miller-2016-11-28-01
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-manet-dlep |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 29) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-11-28 | |
Requested | 2016-11-03 | |
Authors | Stan Ratliff , Shawn Jury , Darryl Satterwhite , Rick Taylor , Bo Berry | |
I-D last updated | 2016-12-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -25
by Matthew A. Miller
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -25 by Paul E. Hoffman (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -25 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Lou Berger (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -25 by Michael Scharf (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Matthew A. Miller |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-manet-dlep by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 25 (document currently at 29) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2016-12-01 |
review-ietf-manet-dlep-25-genart-lc-miller-2016-11-28-01
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 < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >. Document: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-25 Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller Review Date: 2016-11-28 IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-28 IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-15 Summary: This document is almost ready to publish as a Standards Track document, but has one major issue that should be resolved, and some minor issues that may need to be discussed. Major issues: * The IANA registries this document establishes are not defined. One can deduce the required information and its format, but there is no guidance on review process (for example). I urge the authors to consult RFC 5226 when revisiting the IANA considerations. Minor issues: * I wonder if any consideration was made to use TLS for at least confidentiality when exchanging DLEP Messages. I can see where DTLS might not be practicable -- or even possible -- for the Discovery Signals. However, the session lifecycle for DLEP Messages makes TLS a better fit. * In the heartbeats state description (Section 5.3.), it's not clear that implementations can factor in other received messages in determining when to send heartbeats. From looking at Appendix B.7 it's clear that was at least considered, but the text makes no mention. I think it would be worth expanding on heartbeats to at least hint at this optimization. * In the session termination state description (Section 5.4.), it does not explicitly allow for an unresponsive peer; it states that an implementation entering this state "MUST wait for a Session Termination Response Message (Section 10.10) from its peer", then later hints that an implementation should enter the Session Reset state when the response is received or it times out. I suggest that the MUST here explicitly allow for this timeout. * There seems to be a discrepancy between Section 5.3. "Heartbeats" and Section 5.4. "Session Termination" with regards to the minimum number of missed heartbeats before a session should terminate from no response -- 2 messages versus 4 messages, respectively. I suggest putting the minimum limit in either Heartbeats or Session Termination and removing it from the other. Nits/editorial comments: * In Section 3.1. "Requirements", the mandate to use RFC5082 is said twice -- more generally to all of DLEP in the third paragraph and then specifically to TCP usage in the fifth paragraph. * In Section 6. "Transaction Model", the term "destination up" is not capitalized as it is elsewhere.