[adding JR to Cc:] On 12/27/2009 6:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: > And the draft needs a new email address for JR:
Yes, we will fix this before publication. Thanks again, -- Carlos. > > Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. > > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-08 > Sent: 12/27/2009 5:53 PM > > The following recipient(s) cannot be reached: > > [email protected] on 12/27/2009 5:54 PM > The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did > not report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it > still fails, contact your system administrator. > < sj-inbound-d.cisco.com #5.0.0 smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown > address error 550-'5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown' (delivery > attempts: 0)> > > > Thanks, > --David > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Black, David >> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 5:53 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; >> '[email protected]' >> Cc: Jari Arkko; Black, David >> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-08 >> >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >> comments you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-08 >> Reviewer: David L. Black >> Review Date: December 27, 2009 >> IETF LC End Date: January 1, 2010 >> >> Summary: >> This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described >> in the review. >> >> Comments: >> The draft defines an extension to ICMP messages that allows additional >> network interface information to be provided with some ICMP messages. >> The information may be an ifIndex, an IP address, an Interface Name >> and/or an MTU. >> >> The one open issue in this review involves the use of ifIndex to >> identify an interface. The motivating use cases in section 3 >> involve traceroute, ACL-caused-blockage, and the need to determine the >> MTU - those use cases are "public" in the sense that they clearly >> encompass use of the ICMP messages by other than the network operator >> whose device generated those messages. >> >> In this context, IP address, Interface Name and MTU are all clearly >> useful, but I am concerned about ifIndex. An ifIndex is effectively >> private to the SNMP management infrastructure of the network operator. >> Determining what interface an ifIndex designates generally involves >> SNMP access that a network operator may be reluctant to grant to >> outsiders due to the level of detail that such access may expose. >> >> I suspect that the ifIndex could be *very* useful to an ifIndex- >> enhanced traceroute issued from a network operator's management > station >> as alluded to in paragraphs 3-5 of Section 6 (Security > Considerations). >> My open issue is that I should have to go all the way down to the > latter >> part of the Security Considerations section in order to find the >> motivations for and intended usage of one of the major features of > this >> extension. >> >> I suggest adding a Section 3.3 to discuss use of ifIndex with ICMP and >> network management tools (e.g., enhanced traceroute plus an SNMP > manager) >> by a network operator to debug his/her own network. This new section >> should also contain some sort of warning that ifIndex information may >> not be available to other than the network operator's management >> applications (with a pointer to the Security Considerations section). >> >> Nits: >> - Section 2: "o that interface is numbered" Please add a definition >> of "numbered" for an interface. >> - Section 4.1: Explain what a C-Type is. A few words and a reference >> to Section 8 of RFC 4884 should suffice. >> - Section 5.4: This appears to be poorly stated: >> A single instance of IP Address information MAY be included only in >> the following circumstances: >> >> Included in what? I presume an Interface Information Object. > Also, >> MAY ... only is poor usage of RFC 2119 terminology. Here's an > attempt >> at better phrasing: >> >> When an Interface Information Object contains an IP Address, one of >> the following two conditions MUST be true: >> >> idnits 2.11.15 did not find any nits. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer >> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 >> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 >> [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >> ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
