Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
review-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-secdir-lc-eastlake-2011-08-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2011-07-12
Requested 2011-06-30
Authors George Swallow, John Drake, David Allan
Draft last updated 2011-08-01
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Donald Eastlake
Assignment Reviewer Donald Eastlake 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-secdir-lc-eastlake-2011-08-01
Review completed: 2011-08-01

Review
review-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-secdir-lc-eastlake-2011-08-01

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

SECURITY

The Security Considerations section is brief but covers most of the
considerations that specifically occurred to me in reading this draft.

In Section 3.5.2 there are various fields that MUST be unique. Are
there security consequences if they are not?

MINOR

A reference to RFC 6291 should probably be included.

Section 2.1: CC is not listed. P/F is not listed.

Section 3.7.4.1: I believe all the figure numbers in this section are wrong.

EDITORIAL

Abstract: "integrity of the continuity" seems redundant. Just
"continuity" is better.

Abstract: "any loss of continuity defect". So you lost a "continuity
defect", did you? Slipper little guys, aren't they? Maybe you mean
"any loss-of-continuity defect".

Introduction: I don't get the reason for the double references like
"[12][12]" and "[13][13]".

Introduction: Missing commas: "the same
   continuity check (CC) proactive continuity verification (CV) and
   remote defect indication (RDI) capabilities" should be "the same
   continuity check (CC), proactive continuity verification (CV). and
   remote defect indication (RDI) capabilities".

Section 2.1: This is just a personal preference of mine but I think it
is best to explain a little more than you think you need to. So I
would include entries for MPLS, OAM, and PDU.

Figure 4, Figure 6: There should be a blank line after the Figure label.

Figure 5, Figure 7, Figure 8: Figures should not be broken over page boundaries.

Section 4, Section 6: No blank line before Section header.

Section 4: Ends with a list of length 1. List constructs should not be
used for lists of length one.

Overall: As in many such documents, I believe that acronyms are
overused and the document would be improved by more frequently
spelling things out. For example, p2p occurs only twice in the
document, the first time when it is also spelled out and only one
other use. I believe such rarely used acronyms should generally be
spelled out for all of their tiny number of uses.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 at gmail.com