Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-09-21
Requested 2021-09-13
Authors Mingui Zhang , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Radia Perlman , Margaret Cullen , Hongjun Zhai
I-D last updated 2021-10-05
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
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 17)
Result Not ready
Completed 2021-10-05
I'm not satisfied with the weak anti-spoofing protections of TRILL, but I don't
see this making things worse.

I have what I hope is a naive question: since this proposes to label level 1
areas by the set of RBs that connect them to the level 2, expanding on Section
6 (One Border RBridge Connects Multiple Areas), what happens when the set of
RBs connecting to multiple areas is the same, such that all of those areas
would then get the same name, under this scheme?   (I'm hoping this works, and
I'm just not sorting out the details, but I'm making sure...)