Document: draft-ietf-rddp-problem-statement-03.txt
Reviewer: John Loughney
Date: February 4,2004

I think that this document is in good shape.  It is well written and seems to me (a novice
in RDDP/RDMA) to make its case quite well.

I would recommend the following changes:

Fairly important:
=================
a) Expand "RDMA" in draft title.
b) The draft is really crying out for a terminology section.  I am not well
   versed in this area, so RDMA, fibre channel, SAN, etc. should be added
   to a terminolgy section.
c) Related to point b, abbreviations / acronyms should be expanded on their
   first use. For example Gbits/s, SAN, RDMA and so forth.  
d) Section 4 does a good job at explaining the applicability of this particular
   problem to the internet architecture.  I think that part of this really needs
   to be summarized in section 1, perhaps under a 'Motivation' or 'Applicability 
   to the Internet' section, so that this document is easier to understand to the
   lay-person.
e) It needs the IPR notices added.
f) In the security section, the discussion seems OK, but I think there needs to be
   some discussion about authorization / authentication for data copy.  One can
   imagine that DoS attacks could be launched if applications / peers are not
   properly authenticated and authorized before a session takes place.  

Less important and/or editorial
===============================

a) last sentence in Section 2.1 on page 6:

		(Of course this argument would
     be specious if the amount of overhead were insignificant, but it
     has been shown to be substantial.)

  It would be nice to have some sort of reference to a document where it 
  is shown that the amount of overhead has been shown to be substantial.

b) Page 9, in the table:
   s/Thruput/Throughput

c) Note to the RFC Editor on page 14 probably unnecessary.

d) In the references, I think "et al" should be "et al.* - i.e. - it is
   missing a period after "al".