Subject: [P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:15:32 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- section 3a.: what kind of crypto processing overhead would
make a node unresponsive? Seems a bit odd to me.

- 4.1: the para that starts with "The diagnostic information can
only be provided to authorized nodes." seems pointless to me and
could be deleted.

- 5.3: STATUS_INFO - I don't get the benefit of half-specifying
a thing like this; PROCESS_POWER is also under specified.

- 5.3, SOFTWARE_VERSION etc: providing this information ought not
be on by default - even if the overlay config calls for it to be
available to node X each node can and should decide itself
whether or not to send. While you do say (in 6.3 and 7 and 8)
that nodes need to check that the requestor is authorized to get
this information, I think you ought also say that the default is
to not send. (This is not a discuss because I think you have
enough of those;-)