Subject: [Rserpool] Comments on draft ENRP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:03:47 -0500

A few comments on draft-ietf-reserpool-enrp-00.txt

Comments:

3.1 PE Parameter Definition

    This parameter is used in multiple ENRP message to represent an ASAP
    endpoint (i.e., a PE in a pool) and the associated information, such
    as its transport address(es), load control, and other operational
    status information of the PE.

    The parameter is defined to support PEs with up to 8 different IPv4
    transport addresses.

1) *** Don't we want to support IPv6 as well?

2) *** ENRP only supports SCTP.

Nits:

3. Message Message Definitions

*** Should be Message Definitions

3.1 PE Parameter Definition

+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
    |  Load sharing policy type     |       Policy Value            |

*** Load sharing policy type is not defined anywhere.

*** Policy Value is not defined where it is first mentioned.

3.4 PEER_NAME_TABLE_RESPONSE message

Each 'Pool entry' represents an existing pool and shall consist of
    the following:

**** There is PE #1 through #m that is (40).  I believe these are IP
addresses but I don't know what the extra (8) is for.  Oh, I see it is
the PE Parameters and 40 octets.  It should say PE Parameters (40).  I
forgot about the parameters by the time I got to this section.

4.1.3

*** In the ASAP document you have the messages named as follows:

Name_Resolution
Name_Resolution_Response
Name_unknown

*** In the ENRP document the same messages are named as follows:

Name_Request
Name_Information
Name_unknown

They need to match.

-- maureen

Member of Scientific Staff
Nokia           
Mobile: (607)227-2933
e-mail: [email-masked]               www.nokia.com

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:13:53 -0500

Hi, Maureen,

Please see my comments in-line....

regards,
-Qiaobing

> 1) *** Don't we want to support IPv6 as well?

Definitely. We will need to expand this to support IPv6 as well. I think
this change can be done when we overhaul the message and parameter
definitions to TLV format.

> 2) *** ENRP only supports SCTP.

That's my understanding at this point :-)

> *** Should be Message Definitions

ok.

> 3.1 PE Parameter Definition

I envision the policy type will be defined as expandable in order to
accommodate the "pluggable" policy concept. The definition of Policy
value will be policy type specific. 

I will add these two items to the terminology section.

> forgot about the parameters by the time I got to this section.

Will make it more clear. And I think this will change when we switch to
TLV.

> *** In the ENRP document the same messages are named as follows:

Good catch! Thanks.

---

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:06:40 -0500

Maureen:

Just a meta comment to Qiaobings reply... 

In general in these first passes of ASAP/ENRP we tried ONLY
to make the document consistent to the requirements. I.e. the
terminology evolved and we wanted a "terminology update only"
draft.  We both realize that a LOT of changes are needed to
get the protocol done and that we would be moving from the
current fixed formats to a TLVish format... I think this
is probably an important discussion item.. i.e. what is
best to do with the message formats.

I think some of your items will be resolved when we go through
the detailed changes pass in the next few rev's..

The rest of your comments are (as Q says) good catches and I
think we will get these in on the next iteration :)

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[email-masked] 815-342-5222 (cell phone)