[Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Reviewer: Dave Thaler
Review result: Ready with Issues

The title implies the document specifies a forwarding mechanism, but it does
not, it merely provides discussion of two mechanisms in other docs (RFC 4944
and draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly). I would recommend at least
changing the title to be more clear as to the purpose of the doc.

Technical confusion
-------------------
1) Page 3 says the reassembly buffer contains "the link-layer address that node
B uses to forward the
   fragments".  I cannot tell whether this is referring to B's link-layer
   address that it received the fragment on, or B's link-layer address that it
   uses as a source link-layer address for forwarding it on, or the link-layer
   address of the next hop to which B forwards.

2) Page 3 also says the reassembly buffer contains "the link-layer address of
the next hop that is resolved
   on the first fragment".  I found this similarly confusing.  What does it
   mean to resolve something "on" the first fragment?  Does it mean "during
   processing of the first fragment"?  Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find
   in RFC 4944 anywhere that says that it would do next-hop resolution before
   the datagram can be reassembled.  That would seem like a waste, if the
   fragments are then discarded (e.g., due to timer expiry) without actually
   doing any forwarding.

3) Section 3 talks about "MAC address" specifically whereas section 1 always
talked about the more
   generic "link-layer address".  Why the inconsistency?

4) Section 3 talks about "a 1280-byte reassembly buffer for each packet", but
section 2.2 talks assumes
   a "1 kB reassembly buffer".  1k != 1280 bytes.  Why the inconsistency?

5) Section 3 explains that "the first fragment must always be forwarded first",
but does not explain
   what the behavior is if a fragment other than the first fragment is received
   before the first fragment. Figure 1 shows that the fragments can be received
   out of order, since there fragment 6 is received before 5, which is received
   before 4.   Presumably it is either queued or dropped.  If it's queued, then
   section 4 is insufficient, which talks about an attacker generating a large
   number of bogus "fragment 1" fragments, since if you queue the first
   fragment received even if it's not "fragment 1", then the same attack
   presumably exists, it's not specific to "fragment 1" packets.

Grammatical nits:
-----------------

Abstract has "... to forwarding ...", which should be "to forward" or "for
forwarding"

Abstract has "to the virtual Reassembly Buffer", which seems incorrect both in
terms of capitalization (since sectoin 3 has VRB) and grammar.  Suggest "to
using virtual reassembly buffers".

Section 1, first paragraph: "though possibly" is likely a typo for "through
possibly"

Section 1, 6th paragraph: "a same datagram" is oddly worded.  Suggest either "a
datagram" or "the same datagram"

Section 2.2, grammar issue in "Assuming 1 kB reassembly buffer".  Either
"buffers" plural or "Assuming a ..."


-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux