Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 4.1. As I understand it, the SABM can be of 0 – 8 octets in length. The SABM Length field represents that length and has 7 bits to do that. However, the maximum number of bits needed to represent 8 is only 4 bits. What’s the thinking on those three extra bits? Should they be marked as reserved? I would have the same question for the UDABM mask. ** Section 6.2. I didn’t follow what it means to send the sub-TLV in Section 4.2 with a zero length SABM Length and UDABM Length – that is two empty bitmasks? Is that permitted? What would it convey? ** Section 8. Per “Tampering with the information defined in this document may have an effect on applications using it, including impacting Traffic Engineering.”, I have no disagreement with this statement. However, I would recommend adding a brief statement what is the security impact of “impacting Traffic Engineering”. ** Section 8. Per “This is similar in nature to the impacts associated with (for example) [RFC5305]”, what specific text in RFC5305 was envisioned? The SecCon section (Section 6) of RFC5305 contains only one sentence that points to RFC5304? ** Editorial -- Section 3. Editorial. Consider providing a reference for the registries instead of an inline URL. -- Section 4.1. The rendering of the sub-TLV diagram was split between Page 6 and 7 when this draft is read in TXT format. IMO, it would be more readable if it was on one page. -- Per Section 4.1. Editorial. Per “See the following section for a description …”, please explicitly name the section. -- Section 4.2. Typo. s/Identifer/Identifier/ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
