Hi Jeff,
The new version resolves the comments I had. Thanks for the effort.
Cheers,
Tal.
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> Hi Tal,
>
>
>
> New version (11) should address all your comments.
>
> Many thanks and please let me know, if there’s anything else.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> *From: *Tal Mizrahi
> *Date: *Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 04:08
> *To: *, <
> ospf-cha...@ietf.org>,
> *Cc: *,
> *Subject: *Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
> routing-msd.txt
> *Resent-From: *
> *Resent-To: *Jeff Tantsura , <
> uma.chund...@huawei.com>, ,
> *Resent-Date: *Sun, 29 Apr 2018 04:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> + LSR mailing list.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tal.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Tal Mizrahi
> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication
> to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the
> draft’s lifetime as a working group document.
>
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt
> Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi
> Review Date: April 2018
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> *Summary:*
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has a couple of
> issues and a few nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to
> the IESG.
>
> *Comments:*
>
>- The Security Considerations should be more detailed. The reference
>to RFC 7770 is a good start, but please add more details about potential
>attacks. For example, what happens if there is a spoofed MSD with a low MSD
>value? What is the impact of such an attack?
>- Section 3:
>
>
>- The description of the Length field says “minimum of 2”, implying it
> can be higher than 2.
> On the other hand, the Value field: “consists of a 1 octet sub-type
> (IANA Registry) and 1 octet value.”, which implies that the Length is
> equal
> to 2.
> Please align the two descriptions, i.e., if flexibility for future
> sub-types is required, please change the description of Value to allow
> longer values.
> - The comment applies to Section 4 as well.
>
> *Nits:*
>
>- The term “minimum MSD”, which translates to “minimum maximum SID
>Depth” should be explained.
>- The term “maximum MSD” appears twice in the document, which seems
>either redundant, or a typo (did you mean minimum MSD?).
>- The acronym SID should be spelled out on its first use.
>- The acronyms RI and LSA should be added to the Terminology
>subsection.
>- Section 1.1.1 and Section 2 are both titled “Terminology”. It would
>be best to merge Section 1.1 into Section 2, and avoid the duplicate title.
>- “each node/link a given SR path” -> “each node/link of a given SR
>path”
>- “nodes and links which has been configured” -> “nodes and links that
>have been configured”
>- “laso”->”also”
>- “Other Sub-types other than defined” -> “Sub-types other than
>defined”
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tal Mizrahi.
>
>
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
