Telechat Review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08
review-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-02-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-03-06
Requested 2018-02-19
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Julien Meuric (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Robert Sparks
Review review-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-02-27
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3ul1zmZMS1WkcbOm42mQN-Ij__M
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2018-02-27
Review completed: 2018-02-27

Review
review-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-02-27

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-02-27
IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-06
IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08

Summary: Ready with issues

Major issues

1) In section 4.3 the bullet describing the F bit does not parse. There are two instances of "Otherwise" that do not work together. 

2) All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really is.
Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called out
in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it would
be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1

3) I think the security considerations section should call out again what an RB 
should do if it gets message that looks like it's from a SE, containing the right nickname,
but the RB hasn't done the right Smart-Hello handshaking with that SE already.
What would keep a lazy implementation (or one driven by product managers
picking and choosing features) from just forwarding a message from a malicious
element that just happened to know the RB's nickname?

Nits

Terminology: The definition of Transit RBridge says it's also named as a
Transit Rbridge?