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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-07
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 24 January 2007
IESG Telechat date: 25 January 2007
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard. I am not happy about two SHOULDs, which I mention in a re-review
because both involve new text.
Comments:
My previous review (of -06) is at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz-06-dawkins.txt.
The biggest issues I raised then have been addressed.
This document could be published as-is. I think the specification could
easily be improved in two ways.
- Sequential Transaction IDs are still SHOULD NOT in 3.1.1, but the updated
Section 8 now justifies SHOULD and adds a new MUST for implementers who are
violating the SHOULD NOT. I'm not asking for 3.1.1 to be MUST NOT, but I'm
really curious why the requirement isn't "MUST NOT be sequential", and I
don't see any explanation about why MUST NOT was not chosen.
- New text in Section 4 defines retransmission behavior, but initial RTO of
one second and subsequent RTO doubling is SHOULD, not MUST, with no
explanation about why an implementor might choose to violate the SHOULD. I'd
love to know why this protocol is "special" - any TCP-based application
protocol would be doing something like what this protocol has as a SHOULD...
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
