Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-09.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:17:07 +0200

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2007/06/10
IETF LC End Date: 2007/06/15
IESG Telechat date: not known

Summary: Almost Ready

Comments: I have only one major comment: the document does not explain
it is a revision of RFC 3682, I propose to add a sentence at the
beginning of the introduction stating that with a reference.
Other points (minor/editorial/for the RFC editor):
 - 2 page 4 in:
   "The possibility of denial-of-service (DoS) attack prevention,
   however, is based on the assumption that packet classification and
   separation of their paths is done before they go through a scarce
   resource in the system."
   two proposals: "is" -> "are" and "packet classification" ->
   "classification of (the?) packets"

 - 2.2 page 5: (i.e., trusted) -> (i.e., are trusted)

 - 5.1 page 7: hasn't -> has not

 - 5.5 page 12: multi-hop -> multi-hop case

 - 6.1 page 12: add a reference for RFC 3682 here (in fact, everywhere
   at the exception of the abstract).

 - A page 14: I can't parse "within "TrustRadius" (e.g., 1)
   of 255 instead of 255"
 
Regards

[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:43:26 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Francis,

Thanks for your review.  The draft does say 'obsoletes' in the Abstract 
and includes Appendix B on Changes since RFC 3682, but I guess we can say 
this explicitly.

Wrt. your TrustRadius comment, the intent was to say that you would 
accept any value within TrustRadius from 255.  I.e., with trustradius 1, 
255-1 = 254 would be OK.  The simplest possible fix would be replacing "of 
255" with "from 255", but I'm not sure whether that would be much clearer; 
in fact the whole "TrustRadius" concept could be reworded out of the text 
given that it isn't mentioned anywhere else (anymore)

The text was:

    The main applicability of GTSM is for directly connected peers.  GTSM
    could be used for non-directly connected sessions as well, where the
    recipient would check that the TTL is within "TrustRadius" (e.g., 1)
    of 255 instead of 255. [...]