+ LSR mailing list. Cheers, Tal.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this > draft. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/ > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, > perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication > to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the > draft’s lifetime as a working group document. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Document: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt > Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi > Review Date: April 2018 > Intended Status: Standards Track > > *Summary:* > This document is basically ready for publication, but has a couple of > issues and a few nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to > the IESG. > > *Comments:* > > - The Security Considerations should be more detailed. The reference > to RFC 7770 is a good start, but please add more details about potential > attacks. For example, what happens if there is a spoofed MSD with a low MSD > value? What is the impact of such an attack? > - Section 3: > - The description of the Length field says “minimum of 2”, implying > it can be higher than 2. > On the other hand, the Value field: “consists of a 1 octet sub-type > (IANA Registry) and 1 octet value.”, which implies that the Length is > equal > to 2. > Please align the two descriptions, i.e., if flexibility for future > sub-types is required, please change the description of Value to allow > longer values. > - The comment applies to Section 4 as well. > > *Nits:* > > - The term “minimum MSD”, which translates to “minimum maximum SID > Depth” should be explained. > - The term “maximum MSD” appears twice in the document, which seems > either redundant, or a typo (did you mean minimum MSD?). > - The acronym SID should be spelled out on its first use. > - The acronyms RI and LSA should be added to the Terminology > subsection. > - Section 1.1.1 and Section 2 are both titled “Terminology”. It would > be best to merge Section 1.1 into Section 2, and avoid the duplicate title. > - “each node/link a given SR path” -> “each node/link of a given SR > path” > - “nodes and links which has been configured” -> “nodes and links that > have been configured” > - “laso”->”also” > - “Other Sub-types other than defined” -> “Sub-types other than > defined” > > > > Cheers, > Tal Mizrahi. >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
