Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

[Tal Mizrahi]

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

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

[Jeff Tantsura]

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: , , 

Cc: , 
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Jeff Tantsura , , 
, 
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

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Jeff, et al,
The WG last call has concluded and the version addressing Ketan’s and Tal’s 
will be submitted for publication.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Jeff Tantsura 
Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:38 AM
To: Tal Mizrahi 
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-...@ietf.org" 
, "ospf-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "lsr@ietf.org" , Routing Directorate 
, "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "Ketan Talaulikar 
(ketant)" 
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Acee Lindem , 
Resent-Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:38 AM

Hi Tal,

Many thanks for your review!
Coming week I’ll be working to address them as well as on earlier comments 
provided by Ketan.
Should be done by the end of the week.
Regards,
Jeff

On Apr 29, 2018, at 04:08, Tal Mizrahi 
> wrote:
+ 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:
oThe 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.
oThe 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

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

[Jeff Tantsura]

Hi Tal,

Many thanks for your review!
Coming week I’ll be working to address them as well as on earlier comments 
provided by Ketan. 
Should be done by the end of the week.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Apr 29, 2018, at 04:08, Tal Mizrahi  wrote:
> 
> + 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

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

[Tal Mizrahi]

+ 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