Subject: RE: [Gen-art] re-Review of draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:05:49 -0400

Hi

On re-review, I find this document to be 'ready, with nits'.

My concerns 1-3 below have been resolved. For point 4, I was expecting
to see some clarification that the distributed applications share
information.

5. In the new text added to section 6.3, robustness sounds a bit like
magic dust sprinkled over protocols. I think you are really saying that
a robust implementation should be able to detect a service hijacking
through the specific techniques mentioned. The text would benefit from a
bit of revisiting.

6. The date of this document does not appear to have been properly
updated. The document has already expired. 

7. 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:ZZ00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt

Attached is my review of the specified document, submitted as part of
the Gen-ART process.  For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that
	should be fixed before publication. 

Comments:

1. The term catchment is used before it is defined. I looked it up at
dictionary.com and tried to extrapolate its meaning in this context but
did it incorrectly based on the definition in section 2.

2. In section 3.2, item number 4, it reads "information to help locate
location of traffic sources" which seems to me to either be a typo or
perhaps an awkward mixing of English and keywords?

3. There are a few cases of acronyms not being expanded upon or
referenced. Some may be considered common knowledge to the general
reader, but I'm not sure. They include NLRI in section 4.4.4.

4. In section 6.1, section item 2, wouldn't the distributed detection of
attack traffic also provide each instance with less information from
which to make decisions? Or is it expected that they share information?

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art