Hi,
Large list of substantive issues/criticisms of RFC2910bis - I find it
particularly absurd that these comments say "this new protocol"
(in complete ignorance of Barry's writeup and the ubiquity of IPP/1.1).
Mike - we should mull these over and consider minimalist responses.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:31 PM
Subject: OPS-DIR review of draft-sweet-rfc2910bis-07
To: draft-sweet-rfc2910bis.all at ietf.org
Cc: ops-dir at ietf.org, Benoit Claise <bclaise at cisco.com>
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
directorate’s ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in
last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.
Document reviewed: draft-sweet-rfc2910bis-07
Summary:
- The abstract of the document says “This document is one of a set of
documents, which together describe all aspects of a new Internet Printing
Protocol (IPP). IPP is an application level protocol that can be used for
distributed printing using Internet tools and technologies. This document
defines the rules for encoding IPP operations and IPP attributes into the
Internet MIME media type called "application/ipp". This document also
defines the rules for transporting a message body whose Content-Type is
"application/ipp" over HTTP.
- This document is on a standards track.
- It approved it will obsolete RFC 2910 and RFC 3382.
Disclaimer: This document is a series of documents per the abstract. If
operational and management considerations are covered in other documents,
it needs to be called out and in that case most of the comments should be
directed to that document.
Operational Considerations
- Operations. The document does talk about the minimum transport
protocol needed for IPP. When describing the operation layer, it could talk
about default values or range of values that any of the fields can take
“out-of-the-box”. If the fields can take any value, it needs to state that.
Operations like these need to monitored and for root cause analysis.
Identifying information that is consistent such as what gets put in any
field is helpful.
- It is not apparent from the document if this new protocol places any
requirements on other protocols and components in the network. These could
be restrictions or creating dependencies on existing protocols. If it does,
the requirements need to be called out.
- The same is true for impact on operations of existing networks. If the
impact is minimal, the document can just mention that. The impact should
consider impact on servers performing auto-configuration for this protocol.
Or impact on server or network if large print jobs are enqueued as a result
of a spam.
- How would an operator know that the protocol is operating correctly?
Are there tests that network operators can run (other than enqueuing a
print job) to test that the protocol is working properly. Are there
particular metrics that an operator should watch out for?
Management Considerations:
- From a management consideration point of view, the document needs to
identify how the protocol is installed, configured and monitored once it is
installed. That should include not only what needs to be managed but how.
An identification of the managed identities that are involved, what the
architecture of these entities are (client, server etc.), what some of the
management operations are (static vs dynamic configuration) and whether
these operations are performed locally or remotely.
- Scale should be considered from a management perspective, specially
for different scales. The document needs to consider the difference between
a local management interface to manage a single device and how it would be
different from a large network, remote management managed using a
distributed management system. Auto configuration and default parameters
might make more sense in the latter case.
- Techniques for debugging protocol interactions in a network must be
part of the document. This should include interoperability between devices
from different vendors, and across models and releases from the same vendor.
- Interoperability cannot be limited to protocol interaction. It has to
extend to single syntax to do all the management on all the devices. This
has to include both configuration and monitoring.
- The document needs to describe some basic fault and health monitoring
indications that needs to be instrumented. These should include alarms or
events, e.g. out of paper if that is appropriate.
- When propagating fault information, has the protocol considered
mechanisms to throttle notifications to prevent congestion and duplication
of events? If there is a hierarchy of faults, is each fault reported at
every level or only at the lowest level?
Accounting Considerations
- Is it appropriate to collect usage information related to this
protocol? If so, what usage information would be appropriate to collect?
A run of idnits reveals a few errors, warnings and comments:
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3382, but
the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2910, but
the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (June 13, 2016) is 30 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 1610
'[1] http://www.pwg.org/...'
== Missing Reference: 'RFC2910bis' is mentioned on line 1284, but not
defined
'(see [RFC2910bis]) or other transport protocol. Messages of type...'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ASCII'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--).
Thanks
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20160713/689de9df/attachment.html>