Robert, thanks for the review

* tunnel level, ok, I clarify that it means "by some mechanism the tunnel
type supports"
* good catch on 01/02, it's actually R10 and R11

-- tony


On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 5:32 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to