Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14
review-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14-tsvart-lc-eddy-2023-06-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
Deadline | 2023-06-19 | |
Requested | 2023-06-05 | |
Authors | Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Rishabh Parekh , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | |
I-D last updated | 2023-06-16 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -14
by Sarah Banks
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Thomas Fossati (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -14 by Wesley Eddy (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Mohit Sethi (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Ines Robles (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Wesley Eddy |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/V-FNQgs4HKk61HvPray1XUvKUug | |
Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 19) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2023-06-16 |
review-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14-tsvart-lc-eddy-2023-06-16-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. (1) Since this defines a behavior where one incoming packet can create N outgoing packets, I was surprised that there is nothing mentioned in the security considerations about how access to replication nodes and ingress for them should be protected in order to prevent abuse. (2) The intended use seems mainly to be where some outer control system is responsible for making sure that the replication operation will put packets onto distinct network paths, and not create congestion either locally or on some potential shared network segment downstream. It might be more clearly stated that it's assumed that building a proper multicast tree, managing group membership, and performing multicast congestion control need to be performed elsewhere. (3) I didn't recognize the syntax or pseudocode conventions in section 2.2.1; maybe this is common or defined somewhere else that could be referenced to be clear?