Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Hi, The answers that Les gives, below, to Yoshifumi are completely correct. Yours Irrespectively, John From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 3:06 PM To: Yoshifumi Nishida Cc: nish...@wide.ad.jp; tsv-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 Yoshi – I’ll try to provide some response to your comments. I preface this by saying: 1)I was not an author on RFC 7810. It is possible that my remarks do not accurately reflect the thinking of the original authors. If so, I hope one or more of them will find the time to correct me. 2)The intent of this bis draft was solely to correct the editorial issue which resulted in confusion and interoperability issues associated with the sub-TLV encoding for the three bandwidth TLVs. There are implementations based on RFC 7810 and no one to my knowledge has expressed confusion regarding how to take the measurements – nor has anyone expressed concern as to any omissions in the parameters advertised. Therefore we have no reason to alter the existing text in these areas. Responses inline. From: Yoshifumi Nishida mailto:nish...@sfc.wide.ad.jp>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:31 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: nish...@wide.ad.jp<mailto:nish...@wide.ad.jp>; tsv-...@ietf.org<mailto:tsv-...@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis....@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 Hi Les, On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Yoshi - Thanx for taking the time to review. I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dlsr-2Disis-2Drfc7810bis-2D03-23appendix-2DA=DwMGaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE=cshx0Rg6vOrONpG_nGle507LJUTtEDfYrQEJBDjhwcU=t_Fn06RaSxZd_HwovODc65u6de0d-HaN38BUBv5Ok-k=> Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope. Just to be clear, my comments on this draft were clarification questions which won't request changes in the spec of the draft because I thought there are a certain ambiguities in the draft. But, if what you really mean is there is no ambiguities or confusions among expected readers on the points I made, it makes a sense to me and I can think I had unnecessary concerns. However, I'm not fully sure about it yet. For example, the draft mentions about delay variation and it seems to me this term is a bit ambiguous. If expected readers can understand it means (for example) mean deviation, I am fine with it. But, in this case,I might want to see supportive comments on this view from the community. Or, if you can clarify that even if there are some discrepancies between implementations it won't affect overall performance of the applications, I am also fine with it. Anyway, I just tried to do my best to read and review the draft. I hope not, but if the points I made don't make sense please let me know. I would like to leave further decisions to ADs. If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can understand why. As regards your Security comment, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting. As IGP info is flooded hop-by-hop, man-in-the-middle attacks have to be able to insert themselves on an IGP enabled link. Use of cryptographic authentication prevents untrusted sources from being accepted - which is the point being made. As Spencer already made my point clear (Thanks Spencer!), I was wondering if we need a normative language here as the draft mentions these info can be sensitive. I was also wondering why the draft didn't mention encryption while it conveys sensitive info. [Les:] IS-IS runs directly over Layer 2 and does not support encryption. Thanks, -- Y
Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Yoshi – I’ll try to provide some response to your comments. I preface this by saying: 1)I was not an author on RFC 7810. It is possible that my remarks do not accurately reflect the thinking of the original authors. If so, I hope one or more of them will find the time to correct me. 2)The intent of this bis draft was solely to correct the editorial issue which resulted in confusion and interoperability issues associated with the sub-TLV encoding for the three bandwidth TLVs. There are implementations based on RFC 7810 and no one to my knowledge has expressed confusion regarding how to take the measurements – nor has anyone expressed concern as to any omissions in the parameters advertised. Therefore we have no reason to alter the existing text in these areas. Responses inline. From: Yoshifumi Nishida Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:31 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: nish...@wide.ad.jp; tsv-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 Hi Les, On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Yoshi - Thanx for taking the time to review. I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope. Just to be clear, my comments on this draft were clarification questions which won't request changes in the spec of the draft because I thought there are a certain ambiguities in the draft. But, if what you really mean is there is no ambiguities or confusions among expected readers on the points I made, it makes a sense to me and I can think I had unnecessary concerns. However, I'm not fully sure about it yet. For example, the draft mentions about delay variation and it seems to me this term is a bit ambiguous. If expected readers can understand it means (for example) mean deviation, I am fine with it. But, in this case,I might want to see supportive comments on this view from the community. Or, if you can clarify that even if there are some discrepancies between implementations it won't affect overall performance of the applications, I am also fine with it. Anyway, I just tried to do my best to read and review the draft. I hope not, but if the points I made don't make sense please let me know. I would like to leave further decisions to ADs. If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can understand why. As regards your Security comment, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting. As IGP info is flooded hop-by-hop, man-in-the-middle attacks have to be able to insert themselves on an IGP enabled link. Use of cryptographic authentication prevents untrusted sources from being accepted - which is the point being made. As Spencer already made my point clear (Thanks Spencer!), I was wondering if we need a normative language here as the draft mentions these info can be sensitive. I was also wondering why the draft didn't mention encryption while it conveys sensitive info. [Les:] IS-IS runs directly over Layer 2 and does not support encryption. Thanks, -- Yoshi > -Original Message- > From: Yoshifumi Nishida mailto:nish...@wide.ad.jp>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 11:12 AM > To: tsv-...@ietf.org<mailto:tsv-...@ietf.org> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis....@ietf.org> > Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 > > Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida > Review result: Almost Ready > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review > team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the > IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the tim
Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Hi All, > On Dec 7, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Alvaro – > > I am not in agreement with your POV. > > The work undertaken for this revision was very specifically to address Errata > ID: 5293 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810) . This was > deemed critical because the format of several sub-TLVs was incorrectly > specified and we learned that this resulted in an interoperability problem > because some implementations chose to include the unneeded reserved field and > used a sub-TLV length of 5 whereas other implementations omitted the Reserved > field and used the specified length of 4. We wanted to fasttrack this change > to avoid further interoperability issues. > > Just prior to preparing for last call Errata ID: 5486 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486) was posted. As this was only an > editorial change we decided to address that as well. > > There was never an intent to review/alter any other portion of the document. > Rather we constrained the changes precisely so that we could publish a > corrected version of the RFC ASAP. correct. This also was pointed out at the time of editing and submission of this draft. The WG agreed to move on without res-pinning th whole reviwe process exactly for the reasons above. > Your argument that since we are obsoleting RFC 7810 the entire document is > fair game is not consistent with the agreed upon scope of the changes. > The WG never agreed to open up the document for general revision and I do not > believe it should be within the purview of IESG review to alter the scope of > the work the WG agreed to take on. > > Suggesting that rather than issue a new version of RFC7810 we should issue a > smaller document only with the corrections is a viable option – but IMO makes > an unnecessary mess of things. > > As an aside, it is quite frustrating to me that it is almost 9 months since > this work was started and we still have yet to complete it. Taking this long > to publish a non-controversial and much needed editorial revision is much too > long. Though I appreciate we are getting closer, I think this does not speak > well of us as an organization. Opening up the document to general review can > do nothing but delay this further – making it more likely that additional > non-interoperable implementations may be written. +1. Thanks. s. > > Yoshi (or any other IETF participant) is free at any time to raise questions > about RFC7810/RFC7471 and the WG can decide whether it agrees that changes > are needed. But that is not within the scope of this work. > >Les > > > > From: Alvaro Retana > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:55 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) > ; Christian Hopps > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; Yoshifumi Nishida > ; tsv-...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 > > On December 5, 2018 at 7:52:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > (ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote: > > Les: > > You are right in pointing out that the changes made to rfc7810 are the ones > mentioned in the appendix. That was the motivation that originated this work. > > However, this document doesn’t just modify rfc7810, it formally declares it > Obsolete. That indicates that we (the WG, etc.) are opening up the whole > document for review/comments…which obviously means that Yoshi’s comments are > not out of scope. The WG didn’t change anything else (which is ok), but the > IETF Last Call exists to include cross-area review and to allow others (e.g. > non-WG participants) to comment. > > In any case, it seems to me that Yoshi’s comments are clarifying questions > which may not require changes to the document itself. But I’ll leave that > discussion/decision to him and to the TSV ADs. > > > Note that if what is wanted (by the WG) is to Update rfc7810 (and not > Obsolete it), and constrain the text to be reviewed/commented on, then this > is not the right document. That document would have contained only the > changes. We’re still in time to change the direction. I’m explicitly cc’ing > the lsr-chairs so they can make any needed clarification. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - > let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is > common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). > > While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are out > of scope for the review of the bis draft. W
Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Alvaro – I am not in agreement with your POV. The work undertaken for this revision was very specifically to address Errata ID: 5293 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7810) . This was deemed critical because the format of several sub-TLVs was incorrectly specified and we learned that this resulted in an interoperability problem because some implementations chose to include the unneeded reserved field and used a sub-TLV length of 5 whereas other implementations omitted the Reserved field and used the specified length of 4. We wanted to fasttrack this change to avoid further interoperability issues. Just prior to preparing for last call Errata ID: 5486 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486) was posted. As this was only an editorial change we decided to address that as well. There was never an intent to review/alter any other portion of the document. Rather we constrained the changes precisely so that we could publish a corrected version of the RFC ASAP. Your argument that since we are obsoleting RFC 7810 the entire document is fair game is not consistent with the agreed upon scope of the changes. The WG never agreed to open up the document for general revision and I do not believe it should be within the purview of IESG review to alter the scope of the work the WG agreed to take on. Suggesting that rather than issue a new version of RFC7810 we should issue a smaller document only with the corrections is a viable option – but IMO makes an unnecessary mess of things. As an aside, it is quite frustrating to me that it is almost 9 months since this work was started and we still have yet to complete it. Taking this long to publish a non-controversial and much needed editorial revision is much too long. Though I appreciate we are getting closer, I think this does not speak well of us as an organization. Opening up the document to general review can do nothing but delay this further – making it more likely that additional non-interoperable implementations may be written. Yoshi (or any other IETF participant) is free at any time to raise questions about RFC7810/RFC7471 and the WG can decide whether it agrees that changes are needed. But that is not within the scope of this work. Les From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:55 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Christian Hopps Cc: lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; Yoshifumi Nishida ; tsv-...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 On December 5, 2018 at 7:52:00 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>) wrote: Les: You are right in pointing out that the changes made to rfc7810 are the ones mentioned in the appendix. That was the motivation that originated this work. However, this document doesn’t just modify rfc7810, it formally declares it Obsolete. That indicates that we (the WG, etc.) are opening up the whole document for review/comments…which obviously means that Yoshi’s comments are not out of scope. The WG didn’t change anything else (which is ok), but the IETF Last Call exists to include cross-area review and to allow others (e.g. non-WG participants) to comment. In any case, it seems to me that Yoshi’s comments are clarifying questions which may not require changes to the document itself. But I’ll leave that discussion/decision to him and to the TSV ADs. Note that if what is wanted (by the WG) is to Update rfc7810 (and not Obsolete it), and constrain the text to be reviewed/commented on, then this is not the right document. That document would have contained only the changes. We’re still in time to change the direction. I’m explicitly cc’ing the lsr-chairs so they can make any needed clarification. Thanks! Alvaro. I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope. If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can understand why. ___ Lsr m
Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Hi Les, On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Yoshi - > > Thanx for taking the time to review. > > I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - > let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is > common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). > > While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are > out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing > is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A > Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope. > Just to be clear, my comments on this draft were clarification questions which won't request changes in the spec of the draft because I thought there are a certain ambiguities in the draft. But, if what you really mean is there is no ambiguities or confusions among expected readers on the points I made, it makes a sense to me and I can think I had unnecessary concerns. However, I'm not fully sure about it yet. For example, the draft mentions about delay variation and it seems to me this term is a bit ambiguous. If expected readers can understand it means (for example) mean deviation, I am fine with it. But, in this case,I might want to see supportive comments on this view from the community. Or, if you can clarify that even if there are some discrepancies between implementations it won't affect overall performance of the applications, I am also fine with it. Anyway, I just tried to do my best to read and review the draft. I hope not, but if the points I made don't make sense please let me know. I would like to leave further decisions to ADs. If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance > of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you > to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are > also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to > be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such > changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can > understand why. > > As regards your Security comment, I am not sure I understand what you are > suggesting. As IGP info is flooded hop-by-hop, man-in-the-middle attacks > have to be able to insert themselves on an IGP enabled link. Use of > cryptographic authentication prevents untrusted sources from being accepted > - which is the point being made. > As Spencer already made my point clear (Thanks Spencer!), I was wondering if we need a normative language here as the draft mentions these info can be sensitive. I was also wondering why the draft didn't mention encryption while it conveys sensitive info. Thanks, -- Yoshi > > -Original Message- > > From: Yoshifumi Nishida > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 11:12 AM > > To: tsv-...@ietf.org > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org > > Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 > > > > Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida > > Review result: Almost Ready > > > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review > > team's > > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the > document's > > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the > > IETF > > discussion list for information. > > > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > > tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. > > > > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication, but several > points > > need > > to be clarified. > > > > 1: In Section 1: > > "While this document does not specify how the performance > information > > should be obtained, the > > measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the > > offered > > traffic load." > > > >It is not clear to me that why the measurement of delay should not > vary > >here. Also, queuing delay might be useful info to infer path status. > Could > >you elaborate the delays that the draft tries to capture? > > > > 2: In Section 1: > > "Thus, queuing delays SHOULD NOT be included in the delay > > measurement. " > > > >Is it clear for expected readers how to exclude queuing delays in > their > >
Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Yoshi - Thanx for taking the time to review. I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). While your questions in isolation may be interesting, I believe they are out of scope for the review of the bis draft. What the bis draft is doing is addressing two modest errata - details of which can be found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03#appendix-A Comments on content not related to those changes is out of scope. If you have an interest in this topic and want to comment on the substance of RFC 7810 and its companion document for OSPF RFC 7471, I encourage you to do so. Note that all of your comments (save the one on Security) are also applicable to RFC 7471 - so any agreed upon modification would need to be made to both documents. But I do not want to even start discussing such changes in the context of reviewing the bis draft changes. I hope you can understand why. As regards your Security comment, I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting. As IGP info is flooded hop-by-hop, man-in-the-middle attacks have to be able to insert themselves on an IGP enabled link. Use of cryptographic authentication prevents untrusted sources from being accepted - which is the point being made. Les > -Original Message- > From: Yoshifumi Nishida > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 11:12 AM > To: tsv-...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org > Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 > > Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida > Review result: Almost Ready > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review > team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the > IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. > > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication, but several points > need > to be clarified. > > 1: In Section 1: > "While this document does not specify how the performance information > should be obtained, the > measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the > offered > traffic load." > >It is not clear to me that why the measurement of delay should not vary >here. Also, queuing delay might be useful info to infer path status. Could >you elaborate the delays that the draft tries to capture? > > 2: In Section 1: > "Thus, queuing delays SHOULD NOT be included in the delay > measurement. " > >Is it clear for expected readers how to exclude queuing delays in their >measurements? Don't we need to provide any guidances or references > here? >Also, what they should do if they cannot exclude it? > > 3: In Section 2: > > "All values (except residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling > averages where the > averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time." > >This requirement is a bit different from the following texts in Section 5: >Also, does this mean only simple moving average must be used or any > forms of >moving average is acceptable? > > "The values advertised in all sub-TLVs (except min/max delay and > residual bandwidth) MUST represent an average over a period or be > obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of an average. > For example, a rolling average is one such filter." > > 4: In Section 4.3: > > "This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two > directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The delay variation advertised > by this sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the > remote one (i.e., the forward-path latency)." > >Sorry.. I am not sure how to measure delay variation here. I think more >explanation is needed. It seems that it is not variance as the unit is sec. > > 5: In Section 11: > > "The use of Link State PDU cryptographic authentication allows mitigation > the risk of man-in- > the-middle attack." > >When there is a risk for man-in-the-middle attack, don't we need more > strong >requirements for the use of security mechanisms? > > Thanks, > -- > Yoshi ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida Review result: Almost Ready This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Summary: This document is almost ready for publication, but several points need to be clarified. 1: In Section 1: "While this document does not specify how the performance information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load." It is not clear to me that why the measurement of delay should not vary here. Also, queuing delay might be useful info to infer path status. Could you elaborate the delays that the draft tries to capture? 2: In Section 1: "Thus, queuing delays SHOULD NOT be included in the delay measurement. " Is it clear for expected readers how to exclude queuing delays in their measurements? Don't we need to provide any guidances or references here? Also, what they should do if they cannot exclude it? 3: In Section 2: "All values (except residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time." This requirement is a bit different from the following texts in Section 5: Also, does this mean only simple moving average must be used or any forms of moving average is acceptable? "The values advertised in all sub-TLVs (except min/max delay and residual bandwidth) MUST represent an average over a period or be obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of an average. For example, a rolling average is one such filter." 4: In Section 4.3: "This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The delay variation advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote one (i.e., the forward-path latency)." Sorry.. I am not sure how to measure delay variation here. I think more explanation is needed. It seems that it is not variance as the unit is sec. 5: In Section 11: "The use of Link State PDU cryptographic authentication allows mitigation the risk of man-in- the-middle attack." When there is a risk for man-in-the-middle attack, don't we need more strong requirements for the use of security mechanisms? Thanks, -- Yoshi ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
