OSPF Topology-Transparent Zone
draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-06
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Recuse
(Alvaro Retana)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-01-09)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my concern.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-01-04 for -05)
Unknown
Questions on IANA section (not an OSPF expert, so please excuse me if I misunderstood something): - Don't you have to register both LS types 9 and 10 somehow? - And do the "Types for new TLVs in the new TTZ LSA" create a new registry or is this an existing one? Other minor comments: - What's a DR? Please spell this out! - There is only little normative language used in this doc. Potentially some more normative language could make things clearer. However I don't have concrete proposals what to change and I believe the most important parts are in normative language. So there is no urgent need to change anything but maybe another check would be good to make sure normative language is used where needed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-01-04 for -05)
Unknown
I had some high-level context that took a while to build, but after I got through the following comments, I found the document clear to read for a non-OSPF guy. Thank you for that. The Introduction gives a fairly clear idea of what a TTZ is useful for, but the Abstract doesn't say anything about that. If we still think that people read Abstracts separately from RFCs, it would be useful to add a one-sentence summary naming the use cases that you've already identified for the Introduction. Perhaps something like "Topology Transparent Zones" allow network operators to restructure the areas in their network, and provide services while the reorganization is taking place, with fewer disruptions." But you folks would know best. I'm curious why A TTZ ID is a 32-bit number that is unique for identifying a TTZ. The TTZ ID SHOULD NOT be 0. is not a MUST. Could you give an example of why that would be a good idea? I found A TTZ hides the internal topology of the TTZ from the outside. It does not directly advertise any internal information about the TTZ to a router outside of the TTZ. very helpful, but it doesn't appear until the top of page 7. Perhaps it would be useful to put this into the Introduction (and, maybe even the Abstract). I had been wondering whether that was true from the beginning of the document, so it seems useful to say so much earlier.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-01-05 for -05)
Unknown
- section 13: I don't agree that there are no new security considerations, and in fact you seem to raise one so I'd suggest dropping the "nothing to see here" pseudo-boilerplate;-) - section 13: If a router inside a TTZ is borked, then mechanisms that detect borked routers won't work as well from outside the TTZ I guess (e.g. they might identify the wrong router as the borked one). And contrary-wise, hiding topology may help in that it may make it harder for an attacker to find a desirable target. Did anyone think about this? (This is not a discuss only because I'm not familiar enough with ospf but I bet a beer that hiding topology will create more new security issues that are not described here;-) - 8.1: Did I miss where "Z flag" was described? - nit: six authors again, plus 2 contributors plus 4 "other authors." I really don't get why it's not possible to reduce to 5 in cases like this.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(for -05)
Unknown