Danny, Thank you very much for your review.
Regards, Alia On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:41 PM, McPherson, Danny <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
