The forwarded message is the current review (for the IESG telechat) of this draft.
Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:33 PM > To: Black, David; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; > [email protected]; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' > Cc: 'Jari Arkko' > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-08 > > The -09 version of this draft is a satisfactory response to the concerns > raised in the Gen-ART review of the -08 version. > > I had also suggested that a definition of a "numbered interface" be > added, but it's reasonable to assume that an implementer of this > draft understands that concept. > > Many thanks to Carlos for making the changes. > > 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
