Hi Ben, On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Donald, > > -08 addresses all my comments, thanks. BTW 1 more editorial nit introduced > in -08, in the new paragraph in the security considerations you have > misspelt encapsulation. > Thanks. The nit you found encouraged me to actually do a spell check :-) and I found snown -> shown ecapsulation -> encapsulation So these are fixed in -09. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 <(508)%20333-2270> (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > Regards > Ben > > On 17 Jan 2018, at 23:23, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for the further review and comments. See below. > > Version -08 has been uploaded with the goal of resolving these comments. > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Donald, > > Apologies for not responding sooner, I have reviewed the latest version > (-07) and still have a couple of comments, see inline below. I have also > included at the bottom of this email some additional editorial nits I found > when reading -07. I have trimmed previous comment and responses from you > that are now covered in the document. > > On 10 Jan 2018, at 20:05, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for your review. It appears that is was not responded to in a > timely fashion. Apologies on behalf of the authors. > > (Your review was of the -02 version. The current version is -05.) > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins > <[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. 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-directory-assisted-encap-02.txt > Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins > Review Date: 21 April 2016 > Intended Status: Proposed Standard > > Summary: > I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that > the Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors. > > > Hopefully the changes made between the version -02 you reviewed and > the current -05 have made some improvements and, based on your > comments and WG LC comments, further improvements can be made. > > > > I think the -07 is almost good to go, the only outstanding concern I have > is with regards to the security considerations section, see below. > > > Thanks. > > Comments: > Overall this is not the easiest document to read although some of > that might be due to my lack of background in TRILL and its > terminology. > > Major Issues: > > 1) The document has an Intended Status of Proposed Standard, however > it does not contain any RFC2119 keywords and does not seem to make > any normative statements about required behaviour which I would have > expected in a Proposed Standard. > > > Well, in version -05 there is at least one keyword instance. > Furthermore, I don't know that such keywords need to always be used > when an implementation requirement level is being specified. That > said, we could see if additional RFC 2119 keywords are warranted. > > > I noted this as a flag to the ADs because the lack of RFC2119 key words > seemed unusual to me. If the ADs are happy for this to be proposed standard > then I am happy with it being a proposed standard. > > > OK. > > 2) Section 4: If I understand correctly the TRILL-EN spoofs the > Ingress RBridge edge node's nickname in the source address field of > the TRILL header. Is this likely to introduce problems? E.g. if > RBridges will accept & forward frames that have their own source > address in, does it perpetuate routing loops or present security > considerations that the document should discuss? > > > TRILL goes to great lengths to avoid loops and has a hop count in the > TRILL header so that, should there be a transient loop, a TRILL packet > in that loop (i.e., an encapsulated frame) will be discarded. In the > potentially more dangerous case of multi-destination packets, as > compared with known unicast, where copies could multiply due to forks > in the distribution tree, a Reverse Path Forwarding Check is used to > discard packets that appear to be on the wrong link or when there is > disagreement about the distribution tree. > > Security Considerations should probably say more on this. > > Section 8 on Security Considerations also looks very light on > text. If you are allowing TRILL-ENs to spoof RBridge source > addresses (which I think you are, see comment above) I think you > should have a discussion about that somewhere in the document. > > > I agree that some further discussion is needed in the Security > Considerations section. > > > I don’t see any discussion on TRILL-ENs spoofing ingress bridge nicknames > in section 7 on security considerations. I see the security consideration > section of the referenced RFC6325 states "RBridges do not prevent nodes > from impersonating other nodes” although RFC6325 doesn’t appear to discuss > the security considerations related to allowing such impersonation. > > I think it would be valuable for the security considerations section of > draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap to explicitly call out that > TRILL-ENs spoof ingress bridge nicknames and explain why that is not an > issue (the text you use above is sufficient for that purpose IMO). > > I leave it up to you & the chairs/ADs to decide if my suggestion is > overkill and that the existing reference to RFC6325 is sufficient for a > reader skilled in the art of TRILL. > > > A paragraph has been added to the Security Considerations to cover this. > > Minor Issues: > > 1) Section 3. I am not sure what Figure 2 is trying to convey and it > is not referred to by the main text. Is it required? > > > Figure 2 is intended to show the header of a pre-encapsulated frame > going from a TRILL-EN to an edge TRILL switch. If it is retained in > the draft, there should be clarifying text that references it. > > > I still don’t see any reference to figure 2 in the text (or to figure 1 > for that matter). > > > References have been added. > > However, Section 4 says > > The TRILL-EN learns this nickname by listening > to the TRILL IS-IS Hellos from the Ingress RBridge. > > which makes me think if the TRILL-EN is running IS-IS for hellos, is > pushing the directory such an obstacle? > > > That text refers to snooping on IS-IS messages, not running IS-IS. > > > Ah, I see. IMO explicitly using the term “snooping" rather than > “listening” here (and in section 1) would make this unambiguous. I leave it > up to you whether to make that change or not. > > > "listening" has been changed to "snooping". > > 4) Section 7 on Manageability Considerations only states that in > order for the solution to work requires the availability of a > directory service, which seems a bit redundant when the entire > document is about "Directory Assisted TRILL Encapsulation”. Is this > section required? > > > I agree that the Manageability Considerations section should have > some material added concerning configuration or be dropped. > > > I see this section now includes "TRILL-EN have the same configuration > options as any pull directory client.” Is there a suitable document you > could informatively reference here that describes/discusses the > configuration options for a pull directory client? > > > A reference to the appropriate section of RFC 8171 has been added. > > Minor nit: should the sentence start “TRILL-ENs”? > > > OK. > > Other editorial nits I found reading -07: > > Section 3, para 2 says "If a destination is not known to be attached to > one or more RBridge edge nodes”. I struggled to parse this without reading > it multiple times, I think what you mean to say is "If it is not known > whether a destination is attached to one or more RBridge edge nodes”? > > > That seems to be better wording. > > Section 3, para 4: s/don’t/doesn’t/ > > Section 3, para 8: s/and perform/and performs/ > > Section 5.1, para 2: s/data frames with TRILL header/data frames with > TRILL headers/ > > Section 7, para 1: s/TRIL-ENs/TRILL-ENs/ > > > The above editorial fixes have been made. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 <(508)%20333-2270> (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > <https://maps.google.com/?q=155+Beaver+Street,+Milford,+MA+01757+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> > [email protected] > > Regards > Ben > > >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
