Hi, Eliot,
On Jun 2, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
Title: Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field
Reviewer: Eliot Lear
Review Date: 2 June 2012
IETF Last Call Date: 31 May 2012
Summary: This draft is quite well written, and is very nearly ready for
publication.
This draft is well written, and from the applications perspective represents
an important step to improving performance and error reduction. It uses a
new requirements call-out style that I would class as experimental, but not
bad. It is worth people reading this draft and deciding if they agree with
Joe's approach.
Major issues:
None (Yay!).
Minor issues:
Section 4 needs to be reconciled a bit with Section 6.1. Specifically:
The IPv4 ID field can be useful for other purposes.
And
>> IPv4 ID field MUST NOT be used for purposes other than
fragmentation and reassembly.
My suggestion is to drop the above sentence from Section 4.
The two are not contradictory - the ID can be useful, but generating it
correctly is prohibitive and typically not done.
In Section 6.1:
Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based
duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent.
Under what circumstances would the ID field be absent?
Replace "absent" with "known not unique".
>> Sources of non-atomic IPv4 datagrams using strong integrity checks
MAY reuse the ID within MSL values smaller than is typical.
Is the issue really the source using strong integrity checks or the
destination in this context? What is typical?
The onus is on the source (of non-atomic datagrams) - if it includes strong
integrity checks (that are presumably validated by the receiver), it then has
more flexibility in its generation of the iD values.
Nit:
Shouldn't Sections 3, 4, and 5, really be Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3?
Not subsections of 2, but perhaps "3, 3.1, 3.2"?
Joe