Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-
review-ietf-pim-hello-intid-secdir-lc-lonvick-2011-08-14-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 01) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2011-08-19 | |
Requested | 2011-07-26 | |
Authors | Sameer Gulrajani , Stig Venaas | |
I-D last updated | 2011-08-14 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Chris M. Lonvick
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Chris M. Lonvick |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Completed | 2011-08-14 |
review-ietf-pim-hello-intid-secdir-lc-lonvick-2011-08-14-00
Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Overall I find the document to be of good quality and I agree that the security considerations section is adequate. While PIM is certainly not my strong suit the document is understandable except for the following paragraph from Section 2.1: The Local Interface Identifier MUST be non-zero. The reason for this, is that some protocols may want to only optionally refer to an Interface using the Interface Identifier Hello option, and use the value of 0 to show that it is not referred to. Note that the value of 0 is not a valid ifIndex as defined in [RFC1213]. This seems to be saying that the Local Interface Identifier must not be 0, except when some protocol wants to use the Interface Identifier Hello to not refer to any actual interface. Which leaves me confused. Regards, Chris