Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-mib-extension-12 .txt

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:09:38 -0500

Authors,

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). 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
comments you may receive. 

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-mib-extension-12.txt

Reviewer: Eric Gray

Review Date: 11/22/2006

IETF LC End Date: 11/27/2006

Summary: This draft is not quite ready for publishing as a Proposed
Standard.  There are several relatively minor issues which should be
addressed prior to publishing this draft.

Comments:
++++++++

"this () implementation" ambiguity
==================================

Starting with the second paragraph on page 11, and continuing through the
remainder
of section 3.2, you use the phrase "this implementation" several times in
such a way 
that it is not clear either that you are talking about a specific TCP
implementation, 
or which implementation that might be.

For example, in the 2nd paragraph on page 11, "this specific implementation"
seems
meant to include "any specific TCP implementation" while, in the 3rd
paragraph, "this
TCP implementation" seems to refer to "a specific TCP implementation"
examined by
way of the MIB.  The 4th paragraph opens by mentioning that the MIB might
not be
useful in comparing different implementations, and closes by saying an
implementer
may use the MIB and their own detailed knowledge of a specific TCP
implementation
(presumably one of the TCP implementations they've implemented) to
debug/evaluate 
"this implementation" - seeming to refer to the same implementation of which
they 
have detailed knowledge (as opposed to in comparison with other
implementations).

I suggest the following modifications:

2nd para - replace "this specific implementation" with "any specific TCP
implementation"
3rd para - replace "this TCP implementation" with "TCP implementations"
4th para - replace "this implementation" with "their implementation"

As a related question, is their a specific requirement stated in this
specification that
identifies exactly how a network management platform, network operator, or
TCP
implementer is expected to determine which TCP implementation the objects in
the
MIB are associated with - or is it merely assumed that they will be able to
do this
using either some other MIB objects, management information, or a priori
knwoledge 
about the network and the specific device being queried?

MIB Issue - flaws in descriptions
=================================

DESCRIPTION at the top of page 16 (2nd para): should read "TCP Stack
Statistics" 
as opposed to "TCP Path Statistics" (cut and paste error?)

2nd DESCRIPTION on page 16 (2nd para): should read "TCP Application
Statistics" 
as opposed to "TCP Path Statistics" (cut and paste error?)

3rd DESCRIPTION on page 16 (2nd para): should read "TCP Tuning Statistics"
as
opposed to "TCP Path Statistics" (cut and paste error?)

1st paragraph on page 17: replace with appropriate text to reflect that this
is an
indicator of the active state of "notifications" for this MIB (as opposed to
"TCP
Path Statistics")

NITs:
====

4th sentence, 1st paragraph, section 3.2: "... that TCP has to solve ..." as
opposed
to "... that TCP has to solved ..."

Last sentence, 1st paragraph, page 11: "... TCP implementations ..." as
opposed to
"... TCP implementation ..."

1st sentence, 2nd paragraph, page 11: "Since the underlying algorithms are
not uniform, 
it is difficult to tightly specify a MIB." 
("it makes it" is redundant, since the first "it" apparently refers to the
fact that 
underlying algorithms are not uniform, and this redundancy makes the
phrasing awkward)
Alternatively: "That fact that the underlying algorithms are not uniform
makes it 
difficult to tightly specify a MIB."

2nd sentence, 1st paragraph, section 3.3: "... can be used to defend ..." as
opposed to
"... can be to defend ..."

Last paragraph on page 12 is awkward. I suggest rewording as follows:

"Most diversity in SYN flood defense arises from variations in these
algorithms to limit 
 load, and therefore cannot conveniently be instrumented with a common
standard MIB."

1st DESCRIPTION on page 27: "whatever time granularity the system supports"
as
opposed to "what ever time granularity is the system supports."

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