Subject: RE: [NSIS] Extending WGLC for draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-13.txt

From: "Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:25:08 +0800

Hi all,

The draft -13 is well written and provides some explanation of the
important design points. Below are some of my comments on the draft
(mainly for clarifications):

- Sec "4.3.2 Local Processing and Validation", page 29, point 2 "The
Application MAY provide an updated NSLP payload for the same NSLPID,
which will be used in the Query forwarded by GIST. ..., any GIST node
forwarding a Query MUST NOT modify it except in the NSLP payload; in
particular, it MUST NOT modify any GIST payloads or their order"
What does this part mean? A NSLP node is allowed to modified the NSLP
payload without being recorded as part of the signaling path. Is there
any information allow the receiver of this message to decide where the
NSLP payload is actually from?

- Sec "4.4.2 GIST Peer Authorisation", Page 38 - 40. 
This part helps in understanding how the authorisation is carried out on
a GIST node. However, it is part of the implementation issue, and
belongs to the Security Considerations. Suggest move it after the "8.2
Peer Node Authentication" as "8.3 Peer Node Authorisation".

- Sec "5.3.3 Retransmission and Rate Control", Page 58 last paragraph.
It is suggested that "A suitable approach is to restrict the token
bucket parameters so that the mean output rate is a small fraction ,
such as 5%, of the nodes' lowest-speed interface." 
Shouldn't it be "5% of the node's lowest-speed interface participated in
the signaling"? What if the node has a extremly low speed interface
(e.g. dialup) that is used for other purpose? 

- Sec "5.8.1.3 Upstream Q-mode Encapsulation" Page 69, third bullet "The
DiffServ codepoint and (for IPv6) flow label MAY be set to match the
values from the MRI as in the downstream case, and the UDP port
selection is also the same."
Does this matter? Or, it is just assuming/hoping that the network is
doing symmetric routing?

- Annex A, "A.2 General Object Format" & "A.3.1.1 Path-Coupled MRM".
Both formats have the A/B flags, for different purpose. Would be better
if a different name is used, say "C/D", for one of them.

- Annex A, "A.3.1.1 Path-Coupled MRM", page 122, "Source/Destination
Port" field. It is said that "If the flag is set and port=0x0000, the
MRI will apply to a specific port, whose value is not yet know." 
It sounds like a quite useful feature to enable predictive signaling.
However, when the port number is know, the signaling states has to be
updated, such that it could refer to the current flow. In this case,
would receiving a message of different MRI (the port number is
different) cause any problem in GIST state management? At least it has
impact on the routing state table (Figure 9) on the GIST node. Also, at
this state, with port set to 0x0000, the MRI may not be useful at the
NSLP layer, e.g. no filter could be derived. A sentence like "In this
case, signaling applications decide the use of MRI according to their
message processing rule, e.g. mark the state as pending" would be
helpful.

- Annex A, "A.3.9 NAT Traversal", page 129 first paragraph "The list is
initialised by the first NAT on the path; subsequent NATs may delete
elements in the list." 
The subsequent NATs can only delete elements from the list? Is there a
reason why they could not add elements (i.e. make further changes to the
objects)?

Cheers

Cheng Hong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:17 PM
> To: nsis
> Subject: [NSIS] Extending WGLC for draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-13.txt 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for all getting their reviews done and/or discuss open items. 
> 
> The WGLC is extended for one week, as discussions have 
> started late and to give further opportunities for reviews. 
> 
> Thus, the WGLC runs now until **May 2nd**!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   Martin
> 
> 
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:
> 
> 
> 	Von: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
> 	Datum: 18. April 2007 11:37:22 MESZ
> 	An: nsis <[email-masked]>
> 	Betreff: [NSIS] Reminder: WGLC for draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-13.txt 
> 
> 	Dear all,
> 
> 	This is a friendly reminder for the currently running 
> WGLC for GIST.
> 
> 	Apparently, there have not been much reviews and/or 
> comments on GIST. I interpret this as *nobody* has read the 
> document. Consider also Magnus' email response to the original WGLC!
> 
> 	In any case, I would like to encourage all WG memmbers 
> and especially *all* implementers and NSLP authors to review 
> GIST and to send their comments to the list.
> 
> 	It is even good to send something along the lines "yes, 
> I have read the document and it is fine with me."
> 
> 	Thanks and looking forward to your reviews,
> 
> 	  Martin
> 

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