Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-16.txt

Hi Jukka,

Thanks a lot for your review! I will go through the comments today  
and come back if I need more information.

Thanks,

   Martin

Am 04.12.2007 um 23:06 schrieb Jukka MJ Manner:

>
> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed that draft. I don't have any major objections to the
> document, just some miscellaneous comments and clarification requests.
>
> Here goes:
>
> - p.6, bullet 1: at this point in the document, it is not clear to the
>   reader what the NSIS initiator/receiver are. Propose to use simpler
>   terminology at this early phase in the intro.
>
> - p.6, end of page: propose to clearly say wo sends which message,  
> e.g.:
>
> "CREATE message: send by the data sender for..."
>
> "EXTERNAL message: used by data receiver to ..."
>
> Related comment: why abbreviate EXTERNAL to "EXT"?
> 	* None of the other message are abbreviated
> 	* EXTERNAL is as long a word as "RESPONSE" (both abbreviated?)
>
> Suggest to drop the EXT-term
>
> Related to the above the document presents over and over again that
> EXTERNAL is EXT ("EXTERNAL (EXT)") and is a bit inconsistent in  
> when to
> use EXTERNAL and when just EXT (both used here and there).
>
> - p.7.: s/body of the document, covers/body of the document cover/
>
> - p.23: s/inSection/in Section/
>
> - p.27: "if the node runs _it_ garbage collection cycle."?
>
> - p.27: "appropriate error of class 'Protocol error' (0x1)": 0x1 is
>   Informational, ox3 is protocol error.
>
> - p.32: "is thus managed NSLP hop-by-hop"?
>
> - p.41: "session created by REA."?
>
> - p.41: "using CREATE Section 3.7.1" > "(see Section 3.7.1)"?
>
> - p.43: "if the like to aggregate"?
>
> - p.46, whole Section 3.7.6.1: should NR be actually DR? Including  
> Figure
>   18?
>
> - P.46-47, Section 3.7.6.1: I don't really get this operation at all.
>   Sounds a bit complex to have the EXT-session trigger a CREATE- 
> session.
>   Maybe some more discussion/description is needed to open up the
>   scenario. Also, the NATFW_NONCE sounds a bit wierd, somehow. In  
> the QoS
>   NSLP, we have the same functionality, but it is called "session  
> binding"
>   and uses a similar object where the content is the SID of the  
> primary
>   flow. Achieves the same thing, and you can be sure there are no
>   collisions with nonces. Does the value need to be a random value? Or
>   could you perhaps re-use the QoS NSLP object since we have common  
> object
>   repository anyway? The concept in the QoS NSLP session binding is  
> that
>   the secondary session is valid as long as the primary session is.
>
> - Related to the above, p.48 (middle): if you have the "internal"
>   CREATE+NONCE session and also get the e2e CREATE session, do you run
>   both simultaneously? Or do you kill one of them? I guess you  
> can't kill
>   the EXT-session, since you need the forwarding at the NAT?  
> Perhaps this
>   needs some more description.
>
> - p.49: "back to NI according [to] the situation"
>
> - p.49: "NSLP node and the of the policy rule."?
>
> - p.51: Do the route changes really work as you describe? This may  
> need
>   some thinking, and probably add text to the mobility draft.
>
> - p.51: s/and sends it/and send it/
>
> - Whole Section 4: the text talks about error cases and mandating  
> "MUST"
>   to send various error messages? If you must always send error  
> messages,
>   isn't this a use case for DoS attacks? I guess some words about  
> when to
>   send error messages would be needed (rate limiting, etc.).
>
> - p.57 (top of page): "Further version of this memo may allow other  
> values
>   for the 'sub_ports' field." I think suggestions like this should  
> not be
>   in a draft going to WGLC.
>
> - p.58-60: there are a lot of error codes. Should somewhere be  
> written how
>   and when these are used? Some of these are quite clear, but e.g.  I
>   don't understand Permanent failures 0x03, 0x05 and 0x06. Where would
>   these be used?
>
> - p.61, Section 4.2.7: where is this object used actually? text says
>   "possibly needed", sounds a bit wierd for a draft in WGLC. Is it  
> needed,
>   and where/when/why? Should this be also available for IPv6?
>
> - p.62, 3rd line: "according [to] these rules:"
>
> - p.64, Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2: what are these "(O)" and "(M)"?  
> Optional
>   and mandatory? Say it clearly.
>
> - p.64, Section 4.3.2: point c) as use case for EXT: you lost me  
> here? Was
>   this presented earlier? Actually, in general about EXT, should it  
> always
>   have the proxy bit P=1? What happens if I send an EXT message  
> towards
>   the DS with P=0? Does the EXT reach the DS? What happens then?
>
> - p.67: "In Section 5.1 we describe [how] the ..."
>
> - p.73: s/located to the/located at the/
>
>
>
> Jukka

[email protected]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,  
London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis