Early Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10
review-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10-rtgdir-early-mizrahi-2018-05-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 25) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-05-11 | |
Requested | 2018-04-18 | |
Requested by | Acee Lindem | |
Authors | Jeff Tantsura , Uma Chunduri , Sam Aldrin , Peter Psenak | |
I-D last updated | 2018-05-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -10
by Tal Mizrahi
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -15 by Tal Mizrahi (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Vincent Roca (diff) Genart Last Call review of -17 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Genart Telechat review of -20 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tal Mizrahi |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 25) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2018-05-01 |
review-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10-rtgdir-early-mizrahi-2018-05-01-00
Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi Review Date: April 2018 Intended Status: Standards Track *Summary:* This document is basically ready for publication, but has a couple of issues and a few nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. *Comments:* - The Security Considerations should be more detailed. The reference to RFC 7770 is a good start, but please add more details about potential attacks. For example, what happens if there is a spoofed MSD with a low MSD value? What is the impact of such an attack? - Section 3: - The description of the Length field says “minimum of 2”, implying it can be higher than 2. On the other hand, the Value field: “consists of a 1 octet sub-type (IANA Registry) and 1 octet value.”, which implies that the Length is equal to 2. Please align the two descriptions, i.e., if flexibility for future sub-types is required, please change the description of Value to allow longer values. - The comment applies to Section 4 as well. *Nits:* - The term “minimum MSD”, which translates to “minimum maximum SID Depth” should be explained. - The term “maximum MSD” appears twice in the document, which seems either redundant, or a typo (did you mean minimum MSD?). - The acronym SID should be spelled out on its first use. - The acronyms RI and LSA should be added to the Terminology subsection. - Section 1.1.1 and Section 2 are both titled “Terminology”. It would be best to merge Section 1.1 into Section 2, and avoid the duplicate title. - “each node/link a given SR path” -> “each node/link of a given SR path” - “nodes and links which has been configured” -> “nodes and links that have been configured” - “laso”->”also” - “Other Sub-types other than defined” -> “Sub-types other than defined” Cheers, Tal Mizrahi.