Version -14 has been uploaded with the intent that it resolve your comments.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-irb/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - section 5: The tenant ID is sometimes described as "globally > unique" and sometimes (in 5.2) as "throughout the campus." The > latter seems likely correct to me. (As an aside, is this document > the first to introduce that concept to TRILL?) > > - section 8: If IS-IS security is not actually used, (is that the > current deployment reality btw?) and if I can guess a tenant ID then > what new mischief can happen? If there is some, then perhaps you > ought recommend that tenant ID's be randomly selected within the > campus? (I see you use "1" in the example, which is pretty easy to > guess:-) I think one could argue that that (and maybe more) ought be > covered in section 8, if the current deployment reality is that no > crypto is actually used to protect most IS-IS traffic. Is it? > > _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
