Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-09
review-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-09-secdir-lc-weiler-2020-08-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-06-11
Requested 2020-05-14
Authors Mingui Zhang , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Radia Perlman , Margaret Cullen , Hongjun Zhai
Draft last updated 2020-08-21
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Samuel Weiler (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -15 by Samuel Weiler (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Samuel Weiler
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-09-secdir-lc-weiler-2020-08-21
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XRsIMI46ROOSYZ6wwOZ8nZwojdk
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-08-21
review-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-09-secdir-lc-weiler-2020-08-21-00
Question for WG/authors: how much routing (bridging) instability does this
naming scheme create when new interconnections are added, particularly of
redundant connections (as suggested in Fig 1)?  I'm imagining that
interconnection (and disconnection) happen relatively easily and often and this
this naming scheme might create instability that need not exist when a
redundant link goes up or down.

Other than that: I'm not happy with TRILL's security story, in general, but
this doesn't seem to make it any worse.