Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 04:04:35 -0700

Francis -

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Many thanks for the review!   We have made all of the editing changes 
that you
suggested, and I will post the revised draft to the Quick-Start web 
page in a day or two
(after all of the co-authors have had a change to see all of the 
changes).  Two items
that are left are the two items requiring feedback from v6ops or IPv6 
people.

Some detailed feedback is below.

> Comments: I have two major concerns and some minor comments:
>  * the overview (section 2.1, pages 15-17) fails to introduce the
>    real protocol: no mention of the report or of the fact the
>    response is carried in a TCP option, at the opposite of request
>    and report. So when a new reader reaches the page 20 he is lost
>    (at least I was the first time :-).
>    I believe it is easy to fix, the only issue is to get a "fresh"
>    reader to check the new text...

I have make these changes, but I don't really think that it needs a 
"fresh"
reader to check it out.  Section 2.1 had a general discussion of 
"transport-level
mechanisms to inform the sender of the status of the Quick-Start 
Request",
and I added some sentences making it explicit that for TCP, this is done
with the Quick-Start Response option in the TCP header.

>  * the IPv6 part needs to be improved: I suggest to ask in the mailing
>    list(s) or the WG chairs, perhaps more v6ops than ipv6 as questions
>    are more about concrete details than protocol theory.
>    See below for some examples of this concern.

Yep, we put this on the TODO list.

>  - 4.1 page 28: there is a nice discussion about end point address
>    changes. As it should become common with IPv6 multi-homing IMHO
>    it should be read by IPv6 people...

This is on the TODO list also.

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/

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

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:18:36 +0200

Thanks, I'll be happy to read the new version as soon as it'll be
available.

[email-masked]

---

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:01:45 -0700

Francis -

> Thanks, I'll be happy to read the new version as soon as it'll be

Great.

We have one detail still to address from your review, and that is to
add a citation about deleting IP options being forbidden, or
"supposed" to be forbidden,  for IPv6.
Do you have a citation to suggest for that?

Many thanks,
- Sally

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:05:36 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> there is nothing very clear about this (RFC 2460 uses the loose
terms "examine and process"). I have still the strong opinion it
is an important part in the design of IPv6 (*) but I am afraid we have
to ask the list(s) to get something concrete to cite...

Regards

PS (*): examples are source fragmentation and mobile IPv6 (at the
opposite of IPv4 en route fragmentation and rejected proposals
for mobility with home agent header injection/removal).

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:16:02 -0400

Sally-

> changes).

I looked through the diffs between the last version and what is current
in CVS and it all looks fine to me.  Thanks to you and Pasi for handling
this stuff.

allman

---

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:38:04 -0700

Francis -

I just submitted a revised version of the draft, and put a copy at:
http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-07.txt

Let me know what you think.  After you are done, then we can
think about who to ask to read it from the ipv6 community...

- Sally

The changes are as follows:

      Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06:

      * Changes in reponse to the review from the
        General Area Review Team:
        - Added text to Overview about the role of TCP feedback.
        - Updated the flow label discussion from RFC2460 to RFC3697.
        - Instead of saying that the router SHOULD remove the QS Option
          when denying a request, but MAY zero fields instead,
          said that the router SHOULD either remove the QS option
          or zero the fields.
        - Fixed typos and clarified some text.

      * Still needs feedback from the ipv6 or v6ops community;
        - perhaps also have IPv6 people read the discussion of
          end-point address changes in Section 4.1.

---

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:49:32 -0700

> to ask the list(s) to get something concrete to cite...

I have not included anything about deleting IP options being forbidden
in IPv6.  It seems sufficient to me just to have the document say that
the router, when it denies a Quick-Start request, SHOULD either delete
the option or zero the relevant fields in the Quick-Start option.

- Sally

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:42:05 +0200

=> fine, I believe we can move the summary to "Ready with nits"
(the nit is the IPv6 part but unfortunately we can't directly
solve it as we rely on the IPv6 community).

Thanks

PS: IMHO the simplest way is to send a message to IPv6 and v6ps WG chairs.

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:45:16 +0200

=> if someone from the IPv6 community has something to add we'll give
the opportunity to do it.

Regards

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:39:16 +0200

> the opportunity to do it.

But I don't believe we should make this document wait, since the zero-ing
option is clearly legal. Thanks.

    Brian