Alia, Thank you very much for the review and comments. I have updated the draft and draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-05 is posted.
Authors list has been reduced to 6 and one author moved to contributor’s list. Here is the list of other comments and resolutions 1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers node properties conveyed by tags." What is the subject that "to express and act upon"? Is it a router? Please clean up. <Shraddha>changed to “The node-tags can be used to express and apply locally-defined network policies which is a very useful operational capability.” 2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list." Perhaps "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer? <Shraddha>Changed to “The administrative tag list within the TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list.” 3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of" should be "[RFC7490] defines a method of" <Shraddha> Updated 4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional information to an IGP snooper. It would be useful to have some thoughts about that. <Shraddha> Node admin tags may be used by operators to indicate geographical location or other sensitive information. As indicated in <xref target="RFC2328"/> and <xref target="RFC5340"/> OSPF authentication mechanisms do not provide confidentiality and the information carried in node admin tags could be leaked to an IGP snooper. 5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that was mentioned in Sec 3.1 <Shraddha> Updated Rgds Shraddha From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:01 AM To: Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04 Thanks Alias - Speaking as Document Shepherd… Authors, Please let me know if you require any assistance - these all seem like good comments. From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 3:02 PM To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04 On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote: As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04 before requesting IETF Last Call. First, I'd like to thank the working group and Shraddha, Harish, Hannes, Rob, Anton, Zhenbin, and Bruno for their hard work on the draft. However, this short draft has 7 authors, which is a couple over the author limit for RFCs. Experience has shown that it takes much longer to process a draft through AUTH48 and the other steps necessary (responsiveness to comments, agreement, etc) with a large number of authors. While I am willing to be persuaded - on or off list - that all 7 of the current authors are actively editing, I would prefer that a smaller number be selected as the active editors. In some cases, a draft represents a multi-vendor effort requiring a significant commitment from more than 5 authors and I’d specifically request a deviation from the author limit. I don’t see this to be the case with this draft. While that discussion is ongoing, here are my technical comments. In general, the draft is in good shape but could use some English grammar editing; I have not tried to indicate all the places where "the" is missing, for instance. 1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers node properties conveyed by tags." What is the subject that "to express and act upon"? Is it a router? Please clean up. 2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list." Perhaps "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer? 3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of" should be "[RFC7490] defines a method of" 4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional information to an IGP snooper. It would be useful to have some thoughts about that. When you include this, be sure and point out the the attacker would also require knowledge of the policies corresponding to the tags. I’d also point out that the policies and advertised tags are local to the OSPF routing domain as is done in RFC 5530. Thanks, Acee 5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that was mentioned in Sec 3.1 Thanks again for the hard work. The sooner we resolve whom the editors are, the sooner this draft can proceed. Ideally, if updated by Thursday, it could enter IETF Last Call and make the IESG telechat on Oct 17. Oct 15 that is. Regards, Alia
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
