Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05
review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-genart-lc-sparks-2020-08-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-08-28
Requested 2020-08-14
Authors Jorge Rabadan, Senthil Sathappan, Kiran Nagaraj, Wen Lin
Draft last updated 2020-08-18
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -05 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Mališa Vučinić
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-genart-lc-sparks-2020-08-18
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/p1o7DSW8kVxkSt8I6nP7HCDbhKU
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-08-18

Review
review-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05-genart-lc-sparks-2020-08-18

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2020-08-18
IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC but with nits to address before publication

The protocol being defined seems fine, and the IANA considerations are well constructed. I have a nagging feeling that there are new security concerns this introduces, but haven't been able to identify anything specific. I appreciate that the document discusses what happens when a bad-actor introduces intentionally mis-configured flags.

Editorial Issues:

The Abstract is full of acronyms that are not universally understood, and it buries the point of the document. Please consider rewriting to focus more specifically on the goal of the draft (see the introduction in the shepherd's writeup), keeping in mind that the abstract should make sense to people who don't know yet what PE stands for. Much of what you currently have in the Abstract can be left to the Introduction. I expect a  shorter (two or three sentence) abstract will suit the document better.

In section 3.2: The list of three things in the list under "R and O Flags processing" are all processing steps. But the list of 6 things under "I Flag processing" are not all processing steps. Please change the list to only include processing steps, and move the examples and commentary to regular paragraphs after the processing has been specified.

Consider moving the third top-level bullet in 3.2 ("MUST be ignored") to be the first bullet, and after that bullet say "otherwise".


Editorial Nits:

I suggest deleting "refers to" in the terminology sentences. In all cases you mean "is" and you don't need to say "is".

The last phrase in the description of Bit 4 at the end of section 2 was difficult to read. Consider breaking the sentence into two or more.

At the end of section 3.1, "does not have any impact on" is confusing. I think you mean "does not change"? At ", including" the sentence becomes awkward. I suggest breaking that into a separate sentence. Perhaps "Specifically the procedures for advertising ... are not changed."