Hi Shinta, I am OK with all your proposals Thanks Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Shinta Sugimoto [mailto:shinta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:29 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gen- > art@xxxxxxxx; 'IETF-Discussion list' > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api- > 15 > > Dear Roni, > > Thank you very much for your review. Please find my answers inline. > > (11/02/01 17:27), Roni Even wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api-15 > > > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > > > Review Date:2011-2-1 > > > > IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-10 > > > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational > RFC. > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > 1.In section 8.2 the path exploration parameters are different from > RFC > > 5534, missing keep alive interval. Why the difference. > > You are right. Keepalive Interval is missing in the parameter set that > we defined in our draft. We did not put in the draft as we thought that > the value will be determined according to the recommendation given in > RFC5534 (i.e., the interval should be set one-half to one-third of the > Keepalive Timeout value), but I agreed that we should make it explicit > in our draft. > > I suggest to make the following changes in Section 8.2: > > 1) change the structure (shim_pathexplore{}) as follows: > > struct shim_pathexplore { > uint16_t pe_probenum; /* # of initial probes */ > uint16_t pe_keepaliveto; /* Keepalive Timeout */ > uint16_t pe_keepaliveint; /* Keepalive Interval */ > uint16_t pe_initprobeto; /* Initial Probe Timeout */ > uint32_t pe_reserved; /* reserved */ > }; > > 2) Add pe_keepaliveint and its description as below. > > pe_keepaliveint > Indicates interval of REAP keepalive messages in seconds to be > sent by > the host when there is no outbound traffic to the peer host. The value > shall be set according to the recommendation given in [RFC5534]. > > Does this sound reasonable to you? > > > 2.In section 11.1 you discuss conflict resolution for SHIM6, is this > > also relevant for HIP or is it a specific SHIM6 problem. This also > > relates to the issue of conflict resolution discussed in the security > > section. > > No, the issue addressed in Section 11.1 is not relevant to HIP. It is > an > issue specific to SHIM6. Note that the concept of context forking is > not > defined in the HIP RFC. As for the texts in Section 14 (Security > Considerations), the texts in Section 14.1.1 apply to HIP and SHIM6. > When there is no indication of specific protocol name (i.e., HIP or > SHIM6), a term shim sub-layer refers to both HIP and SHIM6. This is an > assumption in this document. > > > 3.The last sentence in appendix A "Any solution is needed to overcome > > the problem mentioned above" is not clear, does it mean that there is > no > > solution to the context forking problem. Section 11.1 claims that > using > > the procedure described it addresses this issue, am I missing > something. > > No, the issue discussed in Appendix A cannot be solved by the solution > (or I had better say recommendation) explained in section 11.1. They > are > simply different issues. With regard to the issue described in Appendix > A, there is no solution as far as I know. To avoid the confusion, I > suggest to change the last sentence of Appendix A as follows: "It is > for > further study how to solve the issue described above." Does this make > sense? > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > 1.In 8.2 for pe_keepaliveto, what are the units, I assume it is > seconds. > > Yes, you are right. Let us update the text to make it clear. > > > 2.In section 7 section paragraph "in which one ore" should be "in > which > > one or" > > OK, thanks. Let us correct the typo. > > Again, thank you very much for your review! > > Regards, > Shinta _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf