Hi Steve, Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
These updates are included in the version just posted: https://datatracker. ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-08 On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:29 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Steve Hanna > > Review result: Ready > > > > I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area > Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat > these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. > > > > Overall, the proposal described in the document seems reasonable and > clear. In light of the security measures provided by OSPFv2 and OPSFv3, I > don’t foresee any additional security problems that would be caused by > implementing this proposal. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-07 > > Reviewer: Steve Hanna > > Review Date: 2022-09-20 > > IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-20 > > > > Summary: Ready > > > > Major Concerns: None > > Minor Concerns: Just nits and comments > > > > Nits and comments: > > > > There is a typo on page 8: > > > > A router stops including the Reverse Metric TLV in its Hello packets > > when it needs its neighbors to go back to using its own provisioned > > metric values. > > > > Should be > > > > > > A router stops including the Reverse Metric TLV in its Hello packets > > when it needs its neighbors to go back to using *their* own provisioned > > metric values. > > KT> Ack > > > You might want to state explicitly that the values contained in the > Reverse Metric field and the Reverse TE Metric field are always unsigned. I > believe that is true but maybe somebody could imagine putting a signed > integer there when the O bit is set. > KT> Ack Thanks, Ketan > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
