On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 21:03 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:18:03AM -0800, > Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > > > Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review > > and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. > > I've read the documents (except the IPv4-specific ones) and I believe > they are mostly complete and clearly explain how ILNP works. > > There is just one thing which seems to be absent: I do not find > clearly stated how are the identifier and locator stored in the IPv6 > packet. From some paragraphs, I guess the locator use the high-order > 64 bits of the IPv6 address and the identifier the low-order bits but > I was not able to find it clearly written.
It appears that some text from draft-rja-ilnp-intro didn't make it into the reorganized drafts. I suggest the authors write a very short draft describing the ILNPv6 header. > Another point is more a detail: the documents seem to mandate that > there is a state in the machine for every ILNP correspondent (the > ILCC). This is no problem for a HTTP server (there is already the TCP > state) but more problematic for active authoritative DNS servers: > today, they are able to sustain a very high activity because they have > absolutely zero state. May be the ILCC could be made optional for > stateless servers? (There is no need to receive locator updates for > the ultra-short transactions of the DNS.) > > Otherwise, there is a typo in the references, > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in > the docs (no 'v'). It makes no sense to use the ILNP machinery for a DNS query (or any similar UDP-based simple request/response transaction). One of the drafts probably ought to state this explicitly. [Yes, I know I am tardy submitting comments.] Regards, // Steve _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
