Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:03:04 +0100

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:18:03AM -0800,
 Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review
> and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check.

I've read the documents (except the IPv4-specific ones) and I believe
they are mostly complete and clearly explain how ILNP works.

There is just one thing which seems to be absent: I do not find
clearly stated how are the identifier and locator stored in the IPv6
packet. From some paragraphs, I guess the locator use the high-order
64 bits of the IPv6 address and the identifier the low-order bits but
I was not able to find it clearly written.

Another point is more a detail: the documents seem to mandate that
there is a state in the machine for every ILNP correspondent (the
ILCC). This is no problem for a HTTP server (there is already the TCP
state) but more problematic for active authoritative DNS servers:
today, they are able to sustain a very high activity because they have
absolutely zero state. May be the ILCC could be made optional for
stateless servers? (There is no need to receive locator updates for
the ultra-short transactions of the DNS.)

Otherwise, there is a typo in the references,
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in
the docs (no 'v').

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:27:28 -0800

Stephane,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Tony

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:24:26 -0500

> I was not able to find it clearly written.

It appears that some text from draft-rja-ilnp-intro didn't make it into
the reorganized drafts.  I suggest the authors write a very short draft
describing the ILNPv6 header.

> draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in

It makes no sense to use the ILNP machinery for a DNS query (or any
similar UDP-based simple request/response transaction).  One of the
drafts probably ought to state this explicitly.

[Yes, I know I am tardy submitting comments.]

Regards,

// Steve