Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-mls-protocol
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-01-28
Requested 2023-01-16
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Richard Barnes , Benjamin Beurdouche , Raphael Robert , Jon Millican , Emad Omara , Katriel Cohn-Gordon
I-D last updated 2023-01-30
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -16 by Bo Wu (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -16 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Artart Early review of -16 by Rich Salz (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
This protocol can be a game changer for many applications but also needs to work the current/future Internet. Thanks for your review.

Assignment Reviewer Suresh Krishnan
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-mls-protocol by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-01-30
I am the assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-mls-protocol.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot a YES on this
document. The document is well written and easy to understand. I did have 
one minor suggestion below (but please feel free to ignore)

* Section 3

After trying to verify if the following minimum bits encoding check works  
  if prefix >= 1 && v < (1 << (8*(1 << (prefix-1))-2)):
    raise Exception('minimum encoding was not used')

I came up with a *slightly* easier to read equivalent with one less operation

  if prefix >= 1 && v < (1 << ((1 << (prefix+2))-2)):
    raise Exception('minimum encoding was not used')

Since this does not affect interoperability in any way, please feel free to 
accept/reject this suggestion.