Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-11: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for this document, I found it pretty clear and easy to read (although, I skipped the TLV specifications). A couple of minor comments/nits that may help improve the doc: Minor level comments: (1) p 18, sec 9. Security Considerations subversion of the IS-IS level 2 information. Therefore, at tunnel level steps should be taken to prevent such injection. I didn't find the term "tunnel level" to be particularly clear, either here, or below. Nit level comments: (2) p 8, sec 3. Further Details One possible solution to this problem is to expose additional topology information into the L2 flooding domains. In the example network given, links from router 01 to router 02 can be exposed into L2 even when 01 and 02 are participating in flood reflection. This information would allow the L2 nodes to build 'shortcuts' when the L2 flood reflected part of the topology looks more expensive to cross distance wise. Should 01 and 02 be R1 and R2 respectively? Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
