Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-taps-arch-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-taps-arch-11
Requested revision 11 (document currently at 19)
Type Early Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2021-09-17
Requested 2021-07-30
Requested by Reese Enghardt
Authors Tommy Pauly , Brian Trammell , Anna Brunstrom , Gorry Fairhurst , Colin Perkins
I-D last updated 2021-09-17
Completed reviews Opsdir Telechat review of -18 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -18 by Bernie Volz (diff)
Secdir Early review of -12 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Artart Early review of -11 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
This document is highly related to draft-ietf-taps-interface, for which we also request review.
Both documents are held until draft-ietf-taps-impl is finished as well, and the three docs are aligned.
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-taps-arch by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 19)
Result Not ready
Completed 2021-09-17
This is an art-art early review of draft-ietf-taps-architecture

My first observation and request is that the group rethink the separation of
the architecture and interface documents. It is a warning-sign that the
interface document is a normative reference for the architecture document. As
the documents are currently constructed, a new reader cannot grasp the
architecture without inferring some of it through reading the interface.

Consider reformulating the architecture document as an overview - introduce
principles, concepts, and terminology, but don't attempt to be normative.
(There are signs that this may already be, or have been, a path the document
was being pushed towards). If nothing else, rename it, and acknowledge that the
actual architecture is specified using the interface definition.

Note that the first sentence of the Overview in the interface document also
highlights the current structural problem.

In this and the interface document, there is an inconsistent use of
capitalization to try to make Very Important Concepts visually distinctive.
Please reconsider this mechanic. If you keep it, use it consistently.

The document currently says (just before section 3.1) "The rest of this
document describes the architecture non-normatively", but then goes on to use a
bunch of 2119/8174 language (much of which really shouldn't be - please try
eliminating all of them).

Describe what you mean by racing earlier in the document - the use in the
Introduction is bare.

Describe what you mean by caching and why you might want to isolate sessions

Describe what you mean by cloning earlier.

Consider an explicit discussion of multicast/anycast considerations in _this_

The last bullet in the Overview is out of place - the others are an overview of
the document, but this one is a description of a concept.

In section 2.1 "its call to read will not complete immediately" is easy to
misread. The call to read does in fact return immediately. Any read data is
returned asyncronously. Please rework this sentence.

Make it clearer in 3.1 that you are introducing a concept named Properties. A
sentence that starts "Properties are" would really help.

In 3.1 consider "It is important for applications using a Transport Services
system to be robust to the" instead of using REQUIRED.

At 3.2, if this were a requirements document for the Transport Services system,
the SHOULD in the first paragraph might make sense. But if its an architecture
document, or better, an overview and introduction. It would be better to simply
say "is" rather than SHOULD. (And in a requirements document, I would argue
that this SHOULD should be a MUST).

In 3.3, you are talking about racing before you've described what it is. At the
point where you note that racing should only happen over stacks with identical
security properties, note when doing so might introduce privacy issues and what
can be done about them.

The big paragraph that is the first bullet of section 4.1.2 doesn't read well.
Pleas consider restructuring it, and simplifying the sentences as much as

At 4.1.7, be clearer than "without cleaning up state".