Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-
review-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-secdir-lc-sheffer-2011-05-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2011-05-20 | |
| Requested | 2011-05-07 | |
| Authors | Vach Kompella , Ulrich Drafz , Clarence Filsfils , Shane Amante , Stewart Bryant , Joe Regan | |
| Draft last updated | 2011-05-19 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by
Yaron Sheffer
Tsvdir Last Call review of -?? by Rolf Winter Tsvdir Last Call review of -?? by Rolf Winter |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yaron Sheffer |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-secdir-lc-sheffer-2011-05-19
|
|
| Completed | 2011-05-19 |
review-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-secdir-lc-sheffer-2011-05-19-00
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.
This document proposes the addition of MPLS flow labels, to enable
multiplexing of a single pseudowire (PW) over multiple paths, while
retaining the packet order within each IP flow.
The document's security considerations simply reference several former
MPLS documents. I believe this is appropriate in this case.
Nits: although very readable, the document needs another round of
proofreading. The following is from the abstract and the first sentence
of the Introduction (!):
- Abstract: "most forwarding engines": the sentence is unclear - hash
what? Also a dangling "END" at the end of the abstract.
- Intro first sentence: exit -> exist, equipments -> equipment/devices.
Thanks,
Yaron