Re: AD comments on draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-17, draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-17, draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-13

Hi,

I think the update provided in November solved most of the issues for 
ENRP. However, there are still a few that I am missing answers or 
resolution to. It might be that I am missing some explanation email to 
these issues. Please help me ensure that we take care of all the issues.

Magnus Westerlund skrev:
> ENRP:
> 
> E4. Section 2.3: What I don't understand is why the Pool Entry format
> isn't a TLV in itself with the sub TLVs so that one can skip all the PEs
> to the next Pool Entry.
> 
> E6. TAKEOVER: I am bit frightened that a malicious server that ignore
> ENRP_PRESENCE message can force a takeover. No one can protest a single
> bit. I also find it strange that there is no "R"eject bit in the
> ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK. If two servers that initiated takeover at the
> sametime reach each other there are no way to indicate that you are the
> looser and I reject your initiation because I am the winner.  See also
> below.
> 
> 
> E22, section 3.10.2: How long is the TAKEOVER_ACKS valid? I guess there
> is an assumption that the Initiating server will send an enforcement as
> soon as it has received ACKs from all other.
> 
> 
> E25. Section 5: Well known Port registration for ENRP?
> 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------