I’m comfortable with your stated intentions here Donald. Thanks for the prompt response,
-danny On 5/5/16, 12:02 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Danny, > >Thanks for your comments. See below. > >On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, McPherson, Danny ><[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this >> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or >> routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG >> review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review >> is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information >> about the Routing Directorate, please see >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >> >> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing >> ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any >> other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to >> resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv-07.txt >> Reviewer: Danny McPherson >> Review Date: May 4, 2016 >> Intended Status: Proposed Standard >> >> >> Summary: >> >> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should >> be resolved before publication. >> >> >> Comments: >> >> I believe the draft is technically sound, however, the quality and >> readability needs a bit more work, particularly as it relates to >> introduction of new terms, and consistent application and use of all >> terms. There are also some general error handling and encoding >> issues that need to be given consideration. >> >> >> Major Issues: >> >> I have no “Major” issues with this I-D. > >Thanks. > >> Minor Issues: >> >> 1. ERROR HANDLING: There are a number of places in the document >> where it discusses the receipt of malformed, badly encoded, >> non-matching, or corrupt messages, and the advice is to either >> [silently] discard or ignore the messages. Some general guidance >> should be given here to enable operational diagnosis of any issues >> that may result in temporal or persistent problems, where logging >> and other actions should occur. Some aspects of this might leverage >> the OAM Framework efforts, although it appears much of the TRILL >> work leaves this to the implementer. > >In the IETF context "silently discard" means that there is no >on-the-wire message sent. It says nothing about whether or not >counters are kept of such condition or errors are logged. A suggestion >to log such events and/or keep such counters can be added. > >> 2. When using “Nickname” it would be useful to define the encoding >> as an unsigned 16-bit integer, or just reference "as specified in S >> 3.7 of RFC6325”. > >OK. Will add the reference. > >> 3. The inclusion of the “TLV” acronym in the "APPsub-TLV” TLV name >> seems loose and redundant to me, as opposed to “APPsub TLV” or >> similar. > >This comes from RFC 6823, Section 3.2, which says that sub-TLVs that >go inside the GENAPP TLV "are refrred to as APPsub-TLVs". > >> 4. Inconsistent use of “Interface Address APPsub-TLV”, “IA >> APPSub-TLV”, “Interface Address APP-subTLV”, and “AppsubTLV” makes >> it seem like you’re talking about different things. > >OK - that should be made more consistent, probably standardizing on >"IA APPsub-TLV". > >> 5. The use of “sub-sub-TLV” seems a bit loose and sloppy to me as >> well, and should be cleaned up. E.g., S 5.2 “IA Appsub-TLV >> Sub-Sub-TLVs SubRegistry" > >You don't like "sub-sub-TLV"? > >Seems like, strictly speaking, you have IS-IS PDUs which contain >TLVs. Then some TLVs can contain sub-TLVs. (The GENAPP TLV is the only >one that occurs to me with a special name for its sub-TLVs, namely >APPsub-TLVs.) and some sub-TLVs can contain a further nested level, >which it seems to me to be precise and logical to call sub-sub-TLVs. >(I am not aware of any requirement for any more deeper nesting in a >use of IS-IS.) So, would you prefer that what are called sub-sub-TLVs >in this document just be called "sub-TLVs" (which I agree they are) >resulting in two different levels with the same name? While there >might be some errors in their use in this draft, the mere use of >APPsub-TLV and sub-sub-TLV for the two levels does not seem "loose and >sloppy" to me... > >> 6. Only one of the “Figures” is labeled / captioned > >OK. All the principal figures should be labeled. (I don't think cases >where there is a small, indented figure that just expands part of a >principal figure and appears shortly after the principal figure need >to be captioned.) So, the initial figures in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, >and 3.4 would have Figures numbers and captions added. > >> 7. The use of “Address Sets” and “Address Sets Ends” makes it a bit >> hard to read when used in sentences. Perhaps an acronym for each, >> or hyphenating/underscoring them would make it more readable. > >OK - I'll see what I can do. > >> 8. S 3.4 the 2-byte “Type” value in the diagram should be >> “TOPOLOGY”, not “DATALEN”. > >Thanks for noticing this error. > >> 9. I noticed that Radia was a co-author until the last revision, and >> now she doesn’t even exist in the Acknowledgements section. While >> no explanation is required here, I did find this a bit odd. > >I think her listing as an author was in error. > >> 10. IANA Considerations: Some guidance from the IANA folks on the >> formatting of this section might be in order. It’s not as clear as >> it could be about what their instructions are here. > >There are some improvements that could be made. In inverse order, >Section 5.3 looks fine. In Section 5.2, "Available" should be changed >to "Unassigned" as that is the preferred IANA term. Section 5.1 is >talking about assignments that have already happened and looks OK as >far as the table of values goes; however, the material after the first >sentence after that table seems inappropriate in an "IANA >Considerations" section and should, perhpas, be in a new "Processing >Address Sets" section. > >> 11. S 2: It’s unclear to me if the “Confidence” value of 255 “being >> treated as if it was 254” is inline with RFC6325 S 4.8.1 guidance? > >The idea is that local configuration or learning should be able to >override address reachability received through network messages. Thus >such information, when manually configured, defaults to have confidence >255. > >RFC 6325 Section 4.8.1 just says that information learned via ESADI >will have a confidence of from 0 to 254 but don't actually say what to >do if it is recreived as 255. This is updated by Section 6.2 RFC 7357, >1st paragraph, that makes it clear that a received value of 255 is >just treated as if it was 254. Thus it is consistent with these prior >RFCs to the IA APPsub-TLV draft to give this rule for handling the >value 255 in the Confidence field of IP APPsub-TLVs. > >> 12. In general, I agree there appear to be no new Security >> Considerations here. I do not believe Asymmetry will be an issue >> with the forged packet discard issue although some consideration of >> this might be in order (or perhaps simply a reference to SAVI or >> other work here). I wonder if some consideration should be given to >> broader disclosure of reachable layer 2 addresses here, but that >> seems a bit reaching as well. >> >> >> Nits: >> >> 1. Abstract & Introduction: s/by-pass/bypass/ > >OK. > >> 2. S.2: s/Data Label is reachable from /Data Label are reachable/ > >"... inteface ... is reachable ...", so I think "is" is correct but >I'll see if I can re-word this sentence. > >> 3. A reference for the first use of AFN would be useful, perhaps to >> the IANA registry. > >OK. > >> 4. Expressing TBD code points in [ ] brackets might help with >> readability as well > >OK. > >> 5. S 3.2 “if the Length is 0 or 1 or less” — not sure the “or less" >> is necessary? > >OK, the "or less" should be removed. > >Thanks, >Donald >=============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
