Hi Ben,
thank you for the reference, very helpful.. As you've noticed, this method mentioned as an example. Would you suggest referencing another technique? As I understood, Dan's comment was not specific to the sequential increment allocation policy but to provide some guidance to an implementor.
Regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:39 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi again Greg :)
Reading Dan's review reminded me of one other point (inline)...
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 12:22:04PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> thank you for your review, detailed questions, and helpful suggestions..
> Please find my answers and notes below tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:02 AM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <
> noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review result: Ready with Issues
> >
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> > like any other last call comments.
> >
> > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> >
> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review Date: 2020-06-29
> > IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary: Ready with issues
> >
> > This is a clear, well-written document. There are a few minor issues that
> > would
> > benefit from clarifications and possible edits before approval.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > 1. Section 3. Is there any recommended strategy to generate SSIDs? Are
> > these
> > supposed to be generated sequentially? Randomly? How soon is the 16 -bit
> > space
> > supposed to wrap-up? Some clarification would be useful I believe..
> >
> GIM>> Because test sessions, in general, will be performed for different
> periods of time, implementation will need to manage the pool of available
> identifiers. I agree, the initial allocation may use sequential ascending
> increment by one method, but at some point, it will be
> "get-the-next-available number". I propose to update the text as follows:
> OLD TEXT:
> A STAMP
> Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
> (SSID). SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer.
> NEW TEXT:
> A STAMP
> Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
> (SSID). SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer. SSID
> generation
> policy is implementation-specific. For example, sequentially ascending
> incremented by one method could be used for the initial allocation of
> SSID.
> Because of test sessions lasting different time an implementation that
> uses
> SSID MUST monitor the pool of available identifiers. An implementation
> SHOULD NOT assign the same identifier to different STAMP test sessions.
I would actually recommend against mentioning the "sequential increment"
strategy. There's some justification for why in
draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations (and more in the references),
which I just completed my AD Evaluation of with intent to AD sponsor as a
BCP.
Thanks,
Ben
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
