Last Call Review of draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11
review-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-06-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2014-06-11 | |
| Requested | 2014-05-30 | |
| Authors | Jouni Maenpaa , Gonzalo Camarillo | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-08-25 (Latest revision 2014-06-26) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -11
by Alexey Melnikov
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Tobias Gondrom (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tobias Gondrom |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 15) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2014-06-05 |
review-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-06-05-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
The draft is standards track and describes how the default topology
plugin of RELOAD can be extended to support self-tuning, that is, to
adapt to changing operating conditions such as churn and network
size. It extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm
by making it self-tuning.
The document appears ready for publication.
With one note for the IESG: This security review did only consider
this specification, but did not verify the scientific data and
research that lead to this algorithm.
The Security Consideration Section 8 seems appropriate for the
draft. It also refers to the security considerations of RFC6940
(RELOAD Base).
One personal question to the authors:
In section 8 and 6.5, you introduce the concept of "the statistical
mechanisms applied in Section 6.5 (i.e., the use of 75th
percentiles) to process the shared estimates a peer obtains help
ensuring that estimates that are clearly different from..."
How did you determine the value of 75th percentile? Is this based on
research or experience or derived from some other estimates? Is this
choice influenced by number of peers or churn in certain
environments.
Thank you and best regards.
Tobias