Hi Vijay,
Thank you for the review. See my reply inline below.

Regards
Lizhong

On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: Apr-17-2014
> IETF LC End Date: Apr-24-2014
> IESG Telechat date: Not known.
>
> This document is ready as a Proposed Standard but has some nits and a
> minor issue that should be looked at.
>
> Major: 0
> Minor: 1
> Nits:  7
>
> Minor:
>
> - Section 7, paragraph 2: Okay to use MD5?  Or something stronger...?
>
[Lizhong] the MD5 will follow the security consideration in
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-iccp] where "SHOULD" is used. And the security section has
been proposed by SEC-Dir to change as below:
   Besides the security properties of [I-D.ietf-pwe3-iccp] for ICCP
   control plane, [RFC4762] and [RFC6870] for PW control plane, this
   document has additional security consideration for ICCP control
   plane.

   In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
   The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a well managed and
   highly monitored network.  This should be ensured by the operator.

   The state flapping on the inter-domain and intra-domain PW may cause
   security threats or be exploited to create denial of service attacks.
   For example, excessive PW state flapping (e.g., by malicious peer
   PE's implementation) may lead to excessive ICCP exchanges.
   Implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms to perform control-plane
   policing and mitigate such types of attacks.


>
> Nits:
>
> - Section 1, paragraph 1:
>   s/is to provide/provides/
>
[Lizhong] accepted

>
> - Section 1, paragraph 2:
>   s/options introduced./options are introduced./
>
[Lizhong] accepted

>
> - Section 3: What is an "ASBR"?  If it is a well-known term in the
>  domain, I suspect you don't need to expand it ...
>
[Lizhong] should be expanded. Thanks.

>
> - Section 3: s/agreements(SLAs)./agreements (SLAs).
>
[Lizhong] accepted

>
> - Section 7, first paragraph: s/will have/has/
>
[Lizhong] accepted

>
> - Section 7, second paragraph:
>  s/ICCP is now/If ICCP is/
>
[Lizhong] accepted

>
> - Section 7: You use "pseudowire" here whereas in most of the
>  remaining document you used "PW".  You may want to be consistent.
>
[Lizhong] accepted

>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to