An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Relay Peer Routing
draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11

[Ballot comment]

- General: RELOAD is now an RFC and should be referred
to as such.

- 5.1: what is N?

- 5.1 last para seems to contain a logical flaw, you say
that RPR can be better or worse than SRR, depending on N,
but you cannot conclude from that that which is better then
does not depend on N, but only on other factors. I think
the text makes that mistake.

- 9: On what basis and for what are we saying that an RPR
relay node "SHOULD be a trusted one"? (That's an odd phrase
in itself.) I can see problems with getting a RELOAD client
to really trust some IP address somewhere in the n/w for
some unstated purpose.

- 9: Presumably an RPR relay is a fine point of attack, esp
if used by many devices. What problems can arise?  I don't
think you say but shouldn't you? (For example, if I wanted
to know who's calling whom and can convince lots of folks
that I'm a good RPR then happy days for me.)

(Note the two last points above are near-discusses, but
I'll leave them as comments for now since I don't recall
if RELOAD covers those issues and haven't time right
now to check. If I get a chance to check before the
telechat I might make 'em DISCUSS points.)

[Ballot discuss]
I have no general objections to the publication of the draft but a few relative easy points to fix:

Section 4.1., paragraph 2:

>    A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
>    peer (or peers) transport address in the request, so the destination
>    peer knows where the relay peer are and send the response to a relay
>    peer first.  The request SHOULD include also the requesting peer
>    information enabling the relay peer to route the response back to the
>    right peer.

  Why is this SHOULD not a MUST? Or asked differently: How does
  the relay determine the requesting peer if the information of
  the requesting peer is ommited? A clarifying question: What is the
  'information'? Does this have a name defined either in this document
  or somewhere else?


Section 4.2., paragraph 3:

>    using RPR SHOULD be discouraged in the open Internet or if the

  Is "SHOULD be discouraged" actually meaning "SHOULD NOT be used in
  the open Internet"?

[Ballot comment]

Section 4.1., paragraph 2:

>    A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
>    peer (or peers) transport address in the request, so the destination
>    peer knows where the relay peer are and send the response to a relay
>    peer first.  The request SHOULD include also the requesting peer
>    information enabling the relay peer to route the response back to the
>    right peer.
 
  A clarifying question: What is the 'information'? Does this have a name defined
  either in this document  or somewhere else?

Section 4.2., paragraph 1:

>    RPR is not intended to replace SRR.  It is better to use these two
>    modes together to adapt to each peer's specific situation.  Note that
>    the informative suggestions on how to transition between SRR and RPR
>    are the same with that of DRR.  Please refer to DRR document [I-D
>    .ietf-p2psip-drr] for more details.  If a relay peer is provided by

  It would be really good to state where in the DRR draft the
  implementer should look for further information.


Section 4.2., paragraph 2:
>    the service provider, peers MAY prefer RPR over SRR.  Otherwise,

  This MAY is odd, as it does not describe an optional protocol
  element, but relates to operational advice. I would simply say that
  "peers should prefer RPR over SRR".


For the whole of Section 5:
  This reads like something for the appendix of the document, as it
  is not mandatory and solely provides further information other than
  protocol specification.

Section 6.4.1., paragraph 2:

>    If the routing mode is RPR, the destination peer MUST construct a
>    destination_list for the response with two entries.  The first MUST
>    be set to the relay peer Node-ID from the option in the request and
>    the second MUST be the sending peer Node-ID from the option of the
>    request.

  Is the sending peer the requesting peer or the peer sending the
  response? Or is it the Destination peer? The terminology is far
  from being consistent and understandable. This will make it very hard to
  get implementations that get it right.


Section 7., paragraph 1:

>    This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element,
>    "route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in
>    Section 7 of the DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

  To what value "route-mode" must be set for RPR? Please clarify here.


Section 10.1., paragraph 1:

>    A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option
>    Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].

  Better say "to be added in RELOAD Forwarding Option Registry under REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD).

[Ballot discuss]
I have no general objections to the publication of the draft but a few relative easy points to fix:

Section 4.1., paragraph 2:

>    A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
>    peer (or peers) transport address in the request, so the destination
>    peer knows where the relay peer are and send the response to a relay
>    peer first.  The request SHOULD include also the requesting peer
>    information enabling the relay peer to route the response back to the
>    right peer.

  Why is this SHOULD not a MUST? Or asked differently: How does
  the relay determine the requesting peer if the information of
  the requesting peer is ommited? A clarifying question: What is the
  'information'? Does this have a name defined either in this document
  or somewhere else?


Section 4.2., paragraph 3:

>    using RPR SHOULD be discouraged in the open Internet or if the

  Is "SHOULD be discouraged" actually meaning "SHOULD NOT be used in
  the open Internet"?


Section 6.4.1., paragraph 2:

>    If the routing mode is RPR, the destination peer MUST construct a
>    destination_list for the response with two entries.  The first MUST
>    be set to the relay peer Node-ID from the option in the request and
>    the second MUST be the sending peer Node-ID from the option of the
>    request.

  Is the sending peer the requesting peer or the peer sending the
  response? Or is it the Destination peer? The terminology is far
  from being consistent and understandable. This will make it very hard to
  get implementations that get it right.

[Ballot comment]

Section 4.1., paragraph 2:

>    A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
>    peer (or peers) transport address in the request, so the destination
>    peer knows where the relay peer are and send the response to a relay
>    peer first.  The request SHOULD include also the requesting peer
>    information enabling the relay peer to route the response back to the
>    right peer.
 
  A clarifying question: What is the 'information'? Does this have a name defined
  either in this document  or somewhere else?

Section 4.2., paragraph 1:

>    RPR is not intended to replace SRR.  It is better to use these two
>    modes together to adapt to each peer's specific situation.  Note that
>    the informative suggestions on how to transition between SRR and RPR
>    are the same with that of DRR.  Please refer to DRR document [I-D
>    .ietf-p2psip-drr] for more details.  If a relay peer is provided by

  It would be really good to state where in the DRR draft the
  implementer should look for further information.


Section 4.2., paragraph 2:
>    the service provider, peers MAY prefer RPR over SRR.  Otherwise,

  This MAY is odd, as it does not describe an optional protocol
  element, but relates to operational advice. I would simply say that
  "peers should prefer RPR over SRR".


For the whole of Section 5:
  This reads like something for the appendix of the document, as it
  is not mandatory and solely provides further information other than
  protocol specification.

Section 7., paragraph 1:

>    This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element,
>    "route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in
>    Section 7 of the DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

  To what value "route-mode" must be set for RPR? Please clarify here.


Section 10.1., paragraph 1:

>    A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option
>    Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].

  Better say "to be added in RELOAD Forwarding Option Registry under REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD).

[Ballot comment]
In Section 2, it would be helpful to me, to include a description of DRR. I know that's described in another specification, but DDR is referenced throughout this one.

In 3.2.2.  Using bootstrap nodes as relay peers

  Bootstrap nodes are typically publicly reachable in a RELOAD
  architecture.  As a result, one possible architecture would be to use
  the bootstrap nodes as relay peers for use with RPR.  A relay peer
  SHOULD be publicly accessible and maintain a direct connection with
  its client. 

would a relay peer work if it's not publicly accessible?

In 4.1.  How RPR works

  A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
  peer (or peers) transport address in the request, so the destination
  peer knows where the relay peer are and send the response to a relay
  peer first.  The request SHOULD include also the requesting peer
  information enabling the relay peer to route the response back to the
  right peer.

would RPR work if you don't include the requesting peer information?

[Ballot comment]
On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:30 PM, Carlos Pignataro  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> As a member of the Operations Directorate I have reviewed the following draft which is in IETF last call for it's operational impact.
>
> This document specifies protocol extensions to RELOAD to allow for a shortcut in the return path. This in turn is advantageous to network administrators from a manageability perspective.
>
> Minor:
>
> The document references the "configuration file", which is defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] is a Normative reference. As a suggestions, perhaps, it could help to clarify where the configuration file is defined (i.e., add a citation to the relevant section of p2psip-base).
>
> Also the document makes a distinction between a managed network versus an open network, but this is not precisely defined in this document. A small definition of what is a "closed" versus "open" network could help, from a manageability standpoint.
>
> Nits:
>
> It is not clear why there is a subsection 3.1.1, when it has the same heading as 3.1, and 3.1 is a single paragraph:
> 3.1.  RPR
> 3.1.1.  Relay Peer Routing (RPR)
>
>    In some mobile deployments, using RPR may help reducing radio battery
>    usage and bandwidth by the intermediate peers.  The service provider
>    may recommend using RPR based on his knowledge of the topology.
>
> "his or her knowledge", as the service provider can be a "he" or a "she".
>
> Hope these are clear and useful!
>
> Carlos.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and
respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the RELOAD Forwarding Option Registry subregistry of the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/

a single forwarding option will be added to the registry as follows:

Code: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Forwarding Option: extensive_routing_mode
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes the authors suggestion that a value of 0x02 be used as
the Code.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An extension to RELOAD to support Relay Peer Routing) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation
Protocol WG (p2psip) to consider the following document:
- 'An extension to RELOAD to support Relay Peer Routing'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-09-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document proposes an optional extension to RELOAD to support
  relay peer routing mode.  RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive
  routing for routing messages.  The new optional extension provides a
  shorter route for responses reducing the overhead on intermediate
  peers and describes the potential use cases where this extension can
  be used.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1685/

An extension to RELOAD to support Relay Peer Routing (draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-07)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to draft-ietf-p2psip-base, which also has an intended status of Proposed Standard.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive routing for routing messages. An optional extesion that can be used to provide shorter routes for responses (reducing the overhead on intermediate nodes) consists in supporting a relay peer routing mode. This defines the required extension as well as describes potential use cases where it can be used.

Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting.

Document Quality:

The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J. Bernardos.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Carlos J. Bernardos

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Gonzalo Camarillo

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has personally done a thorough review of the document. Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There has been an IPR claim in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. The Working Group was informed of this IPR claim  befor version -02 of the draft was published. No WG discussion has happened. 

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is WG consensus behind this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

There are no nits. The automatic nits detection tool detects 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses, but I could
not find them, so I guess it is a detection mistake.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document meets the review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

Yes, there is one (which is actually a downward normative reference) to draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-04. This document has not been updated since October 2011. The plan is to contact authors to ensure the document is finalized or nominate a new editor to complete the work.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Yes. There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-04, which intended status is Informational.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document does not require any IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No formal language segments exist.