Last Call Review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02
review-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-07-10-2-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-07-04
Requested 2014-07-03
Authors Hadriel Kaplan
Draft last updated 2014-07-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-07-10-2
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-07-10

Review
review-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-07-10-2

Hello Christer and Gen-ART

thanks for the positive review! Please see inline for our responses

Christer Holmberg schreef op 30-6-2014 12:07:




Minor Issues:

Section 3.12 talks about keep alive signaling.

Q1: The sending of keep alives is a SHOULD, and there are no
procedures on how to act if keep alives are not received. There isn't
even a mechanism to negotiate the sending of keep alives.







If no keep alives are sent, a peer runs a risk of being declared dead 


following the conditions of Section 8.15. Note that if it does send 


normal messages, this is seen as a sign of liveliness. When a peer is 


declared dead "the connection" should be closed. More correct phrasing 


would be indeed "the channel should be closed", which implies no more 


messages will be sent to the peer and the local administration about the 


peer is cleared. We will change "connection" to "channel".



Does this answer your question?





Q2: As the sending of keep alives is a SHOULD, are there example
cases when keep alives would NOT be sent?







One example is that of a busy server that hosts complete copies of 


static content. In that case, the server could refrain from sending keep 


alives to save on processing and outgoing messages. In particular,


assume a client establishes a channel with the server, sends a REQUEST, 


and receives a DATA message in reply. The client acknowledges it with an 


ACK, but after that does not attempt any downloads, and just sends keep 


alives.






Ideally, this client should be garbage collected. The server can achieve 


that by not sending keep alives after the DATA message. After 3 minutes, 


the client will conclude that the server is dead and discard



the channel. And after three minutes, the server can clean up his end.


If the client would send new REQUESTs in those three minutes, the 


cleanup would be avoided.








Q3: The text saying "to each peer it wants to interact with in the
future" sounds a little strange to me. How does a peer know with whom
it wants to interact in the future? Perhaps the text instead should
talk about peers with whom one wants to maintain a signaling channel,
or something like that?







It is indeed about maintaining a signaling channel. Most P2P systems 


have a policy that decides which peers are of interest now and in the 


near future. Examples of interesting peers are peers that have chunks on 


offer that this client needs, or peers that currently do not have 


interesting chunks on offer (because they are still downloading 


themselves, or in live streaming), but gave good performance in the 


past. When they have new stuff to offer they can be used again,



so you want to keep a signaling channel open.

From a subset of those peers the client will request chunks. In P2P
systems that have tit-for-tat as freeriding prevention this is normally
a small subset as to not fragment the upload bandwidth needed to
reciprocate the peer.



Is it the phrasing that raises your question or should we explain more 


about this policy for deciding which peers are interesting?




Regards,
      Arno Bakker et al.