Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10
review-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10-secdir-lc-salz-2022-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-10-10
Requested 2022-09-26
Authors Tony Przygienda , Chris Bowers , Yiu Lee , Alankar Sharma , Russ White
I-D last updated 2022-10-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Rich Salz (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Rich Salz
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/41kUv-1slgMOhhXGYqV7cBkQACk
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-10-03
review-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10-secdir-lc-salz-2022-10-03-00
I am a routing naïf and do not have a lot of time these days. I hope this
review is still useful, anyway.

The glossary was very helpful.  I still don't have a clear understanding of L1
and L2.

The picture is a tour de force.  The description "Figure 1 is an example..."
paragraph should be moved before the picture, not directly after it.

Sections 6 and 7 indicate, to me, that this document is comprehensive and
informed by real-world concerns.

Sec 9, Security Considerations.
This is where I did the most careful reading.
"If an attacker should be able..."  s/should be able/can/
s/could be in most extreme case/could be in THE most extreme case/
It was a bit surprising to me to see the same sentence at the end of both
paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.  Maybe remove them and move them to the start of
paragraph 3.

I think the risks are well-described, and the importance to preventing is made.
Is it possible to mitigate the damage if a risk occurs?  "No" is a reasonable
answer.