Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-02

From: RFC Editor
Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 3719
          NOW AVAILABLE
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:20:27 -0800
To: jparker@axiowave.com
Cc: RFC Editor , Alex Zinin
    , Bill Fenner ,
    tli@procket.com, prz@xebeo.com

AD-review comments:
I have one real comment on the two drafts plus some nits.

Security:

> 14. Security Implications

Nit: above should be "Security Considerations" in both drafts

>    The clarifications in this document do not raise any new security
>    concerns, as there is no change in the underlying protocol described
>    in ISO 10589 [1] and RFC 1195 [2].

Section 6.2 of the IP document essentially deprecates TLV 133 and
tells to use TLV 10 for authentication. This should be mentioned in
this section.

It would also be a good idea to go through every section in both
documents and see if what's described there changes the security
aspects of the protocol, i.e., creates new or removes old attack
possibilities.

I would also remove words saying that the underlying protocol is not
changed.

Nits:

> 2. Abstract

for both docs, the abstract should not have any refs in it. Just
remove "[?]" from it.

> 15. References

You need to specify whether references are normative or informative.
My guess for the IP doc would be that refs 1--5 are normative and [6]
is informative. What you should do is have two sections:

15. Normative References

16. Informative References

Comments from rtg-dir (Mike Shand):

0) Abstract

"This document discusses a number of differences between the IS-IS protocol
as described in ISO 10589 [1]"

insert "and"

  "the protocol as it is deployed today."

and also

"A companion document discusses differences between the protocol described
in RFC 1195 [3] for routing IP traffic."

between is a binary operator. Presumably it should read "and current
practice", or some such.



1) last para of 7.2 "appropriate match" ->"appropriate notification" ?

2) last para of 7.3 "SHOULD generate a the" -> "SHOULD generate the"

3) In para 14 the statement

"Note that a purged LSP (i.e. an LSP with remaining lifetime set to 0
and/or a zero checksum) is always considered newer than a non-purged copy
of the same LSP. "

is inconsistent with para 11 (zero checksum)

Just omit the reference to the zero checksum.