Hi Ben, thank you for the reference, very helpful. As you've noticed, this method mentioned as an example. Would you suggest referencing another technique? As I understood, Dan's comment was not specific to the sequential increment allocation policy but to provide some guidance to an implementor.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:39 PM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > Hi again Greg :) > > Reading Dan's review reminded me of one other point (inline)... > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 12:22:04PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > thank you for your review, detailed questions, and helpful suggestions. > > Please find my answers and notes below tagged GIM>>. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:02 AM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker < > > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > > > Review result: Ready with Issues > > > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > > > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > > > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > > > like any other last call comments. > > > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06 > > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > > > Review Date: 2020-06-29 > > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06 > > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > > > Summary: Ready with issues > > > > > > This is a clear, well-written document. There are a few minor issues > that > > > would > > > benefit from clarifications and possible edits before approval. > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > > > Minor issues: > > > > > > 1. Section 3. Is there any recommended strategy to generate SSIDs? Are > > > these > > > supposed to be generated sequentially? Randomly? How soon is the 16 > -bit > > > space > > > supposed to wrap-up? Some clarification would be useful I believe. > > > > > GIM>> Because test sessions, in general, will be performed for different > > periods of time, implementation will need to manage the pool of available > > identifiers. I agree, the initial allocation may use sequential ascending > > increment by one method, but at some point, it will be > > "get-the-next-available number". I propose to update the text as follows: > > OLD TEXT: > > A STAMP > > Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier > > (SSID). SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer. > > NEW TEXT: > > A STAMP > > Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier > > (SSID). SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer. SSID > > generation > > policy is implementation-specific. For example, sequentially ascending > > incremented by one method could be used for the initial allocation of > > SSID. > > Because of test sessions lasting different time an implementation that > > uses > > SSID MUST monitor the pool of available identifiers. An implementation > > SHOULD NOT assign the same identifier to different STAMP test > sessions. > > I would actually recommend against mentioning the "sequential increment" > strategy. There's some justification for why in > draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations (and more in the references), > which I just completed my AD Evaluation of with intent to AD sponsor as a > BCP. > > Thanks, > > Ben >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
