[rddp] Summary of AD comments addressed in draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt
"Hemal Shah" <hemal@broadcom.com> Mon, 03 July 2006 02:19 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxE1n-0003Xo-ER; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:19:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxE1m-0003Xj-VF for rddp@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:19:10 -0400
Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxE1m-0007aj-0F for rddp@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:19:10 -0400
Received: from 10.10.64.154 by MMS3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.2.0)); Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:18:57 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: B238DE4C-2139-4D32-96A8-DD564EF2313E
Received: by mail-irva-10.broadcom.com (Postfix, from userid 47) id 622932B0; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-irva-8.broadcom.com (mail-irva-8 [10.10.64.221]) by mail-irva-10.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA682AF; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (mail-irva-12.broadcom.com [10.10.64.146]) by mail-irva-8.broadcom.com (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id DXH94540; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NT-IRVA-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com (nt-irva-0751 [10.8.194.65]) by mail-irva-12.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A66E69CA4; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:18:53 -0700
Message-ID: <00DDB8FFD8F89A488797060F19D0BD82C5888B@NT-IRVA-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com>
Thread-Topic: Summary of AD comments addressed in draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt
Thread-Index: AcaeRwd5yxOpA14tT8io8eP6geZIZw==
From: Hemal Shah <hemal@broadcom.com>
To: rddp@ietf.org, Black_David@emc.com, lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de
X-TMWD-Spam-Summary: SEV=1.1; DFV=A2006070208; IFV=2.0.6,4.0-7; RPD=4.00.0004; RPDID=303030312E30413039303230352E34344138374338442E303032382D412D; ENG=IBF; TS=20060703021859; CAT=NONE; CON=NONE;
X-MMS-Spam-Filter-ID: A2006070208_4.00.0004_2.0.6,4.0-7
X-WSS-ID: 68B6A11B1OO1669369-01-01
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bf298c52ab1dc9f39fd87b679918f163
Cc:
Subject: [rddp] Summary of AD comments addressed in draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt
X-BeenThere: rddp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Remote Direct Data Placement \(rddp\) WG" <rddp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rddp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp>, <mailto:rddp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1776237227=="
Errors-To: rddp-bounces@ietf.org
David and Lars, In the latest DDP draft (draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt), the AD comments were addressed as described below. Hemal > > > Abstract could be reworded. DDP provides "information to Place" > > > data? Something a bit more elucidating would be appropriate. > > > Hemal - The abstract is left unchanged as clarification is already provided in the introduction. > > > Although this document uses 2119 language, it does not have the > > > standard terminology boilerplate saying that 2119 terms > are used. Hemal - Standard terminology boilerplate saying that 2119 terms are used was added. > > > (Note, this is in the I-D Checklist and is something that > should be > > > > caught in PROTO shepherding). > > > > > > The first use of MPA in 1.3 should be expanded. Hemal - First use of MPA was expanded. > > > > Please check expansion of acronyms throughout. Hemal - made the check. > > > > > From the diagram in 1.3, it appears that MPA provides > services on > > > top of MPA that are already present in SCTP. Incidentally, > > > referring to [TCP] as an LLP in the first paragraph of > 1.3 may lead > > > > readers to the wrong place - really, you just want a > reference to > > > [MPA] there, I suspect. Hemal - This was fixed by referring to [MPA] and SCTP DDP mapping [SCTPDDP] as LLPs. Reference to [TCP] as an LLP to DDP was removed. > > > > > > Also, iWarp is introduced in 1.3, and used a few other places in > > > the document. Is there an external reference for iWarp? > It seems a > > > bit thrown over the wall in this document. A similar > comment might > > > apply to rddp-rdmap. Is iWarp the marketing term for this > protocol > > > suite? > > > Hemal - iWARP is defined in the glossary. Historically, iWARP name has been used to refer to a suite RDDP protocols (RDMAP/DDP/MPA). > > > While it is generally useful to have a glossary > ready-to-hand, are > > > there any differences between sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the > glossary > > > in rddp-rdmap and the glossary in rddp-ddp? I'm more > concerned for > > > the sake of consistency than in the elimination of redundancy. Hemal - The glossary terms used in 2.1 and 2.2 was checked for consistency. As far as I know, the terms used in DDP and RDMAP drafts are consistent. > > > > Same comment I made for rddp-rdmap: Since many of the RDDP > documents > > duplicate very similar glossaries, maybe it'd make sense to > > consolidate the terminology into a single draft, and place a > > normative reference on it? Hemal - The glossaries were kept in the draft. It may be a good idea to create a new draft that contains all the glossaries. But, at this point, when all drafts are in last-call, creating a new draft which is normatively referenced by other drafts will be too much of a change at the last moment. > > > > > Section 3 might be able to use an introductory sentence > stating the > > > > purpose of these requirements. I assume it would be > something along > > > > the lines of : "Any protocol that can serve as an LLP for > DDP MUST > > > have the following properties". There is probably a > further caveat, > > > > however, that a protocol specification like [MPA] would > be required > > > > to describe how exactly these properties are provided. If > so, that > > > would probably be worth mentioning as well. > > > > More than one sentence wouldn't hurt, either... > > Hemal - This is a good suggestion. A sentence below was added at the beginning of the section. " Any protocol that can serve as an LLP to DDP MUST meet the following requirements." > > Figures 3-5: It's a bit odd to see these headers/fields > start at bit > > 16. Usually, everything starts at bit zero (the ruler indicates > > length, not offset). > > Hemal - The figure was left unchanged as the offset seems odd but when put together with MPA, DDP, and RDMAP headers, the headers get aligned on 32-bit boundary with MPA header starting at offset 0. > > > The mention of TLS at the end of 8.1 is misleading, given > that the > > > normative requirements will be for IPSec. Furthermore, TLS isn't > > > actually transport-agnostic (there are transport protocols that > > > traditional TLS does not work with). > > > Hemal - Good point. The text on TLS was clarified and DTLS reference was added. Also, common security sections in DDP and RDMAP drafts were made consistent. > > > As is the case with rddp-rdmap, I'm a little concerning > generally > > > about summarization in the Security Considerations of > informative > > > text that is covered in greater detail in the rddp-security > document. > > > Hemal - The text in DDP draft gives the reader one single draft where the implementers can read security considerations for DDP (this comes with some duplication with rddp-security draft, but I think it is OK). The rddp-security draft covers all the security requirements for DDP/RDMAP in greater details. > > > Just to make things clear, please preface section 9 with "This > > > document does not specify any actions for the IANA." > > > Hemal - The statement above was added in section 9. > > > Is the appendix (section 11) intended to be normative? I > see some > > > normative statements in it. As far as I can tell, there are no > > > references in the main body of the text to Section 11. Since the > > > guidance in Section 11 seems to pertain to LLP implementations, > > > perhaps there could be a forward reference in Section 3? > Otherwise, > > > > I'm concerned that implementors might miss the appendix > entirely. > > > Alternatively, some additional text putting the appendix > in context > > > > might be useful. > > > Hemal - Section 11 is mainly provides guidance to LLP implementers. > > > Also copied from the rddp-rdmap comments, applicable to this > > > document as well: > > > > > > One does not typically include in an acknowledgments section the > > > contact information for each individual. Using full names in > > > concert with a brief description of the role that they played is > > > usually a bit more helpful. There is sometimes a practice > of having > > > > a "Contributors" section, which distinguishes the editors of the > > > document (who are credited in the author's list) from a > vast number > > > > of people who have contributed text to the document. > Contributors > > > are sometimes listed in the same fashion authors are (with full > > > contact information). > > Hemal - The section's name was changed to Contributors. > > Lars > > -- > > Lars Eggert NEC Network > > Laboratories
_______________________________________________ rddp mailing list rddp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp