Hi Ben, thank you for the suggestions. Would the Informational reference to draft-gont-numeric-ids-generation be reasonable? Regards, Greg On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:48 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks Dan. > > Greg, my recommendation would be to refer to the appopriate section of > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-numeric-ids-generation-03 for the > needs in question. My understanding is that STAMP needs only unique (not > ordered) session IDs, and that furthermore, an occasional accidental > collision would not be catastrophic, in which case we can use the > "Uniqueness (soft failure)" characterization of Section 7.1 of the linked > document. > > -Ben > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:37:08AM +0300, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > Greg's understanding of my comment is correct. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:56 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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
