Skip to main content

OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
RFC 8665

Yes

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)

No Objection

(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana
Yes
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2017-12-13 for -23)
I'm not sure that Susan Hare's OpsDir review (from -17) was addressed, unless it is:
  Reception of malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for further analysis.  Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs should be rate-limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed or otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane."
If this text was intended to cover it, I think it falls short - it is better than nothing, but I think could be clearer
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -22)

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2017-12-14 for -24)
The document never specifies byte order for length fields.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -23)

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-12-13 for -23)
Substantive Comments:

- Requirements Language: There are a few instances of 2119 keywords in lower case. Please consider if those are meant to be normative. If not, then please use the boilerplate from RFC 8184, which explicitly excludes lower case instances as normative keywords.

-3.1, 2nd to last paragraph: Why aren't the 3 "SHOULDs" "MUSTs"? It seems like these might have an impact on interoperability, or at least predictable behavior in edge conditions.

-3.4: (same comment as for 3.1)

Editorial Comments and Nits:

-1, first paragraph: There are a lot of ideas packed into that paragraph. It's not clear to me which the "For example" sentences means to exemplify.

-3.3, 2nd to last paragraph: Why is "NOT" capitalized?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -23)

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -23)

                            
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -23)

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -22)

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -23)

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-12-13 for -23)
* It would be good to clarify that this document is intended for OSPFv2 only (probably in the title and/or abstract). It may also be worthwhile for the document and/or the Shepherd writeup to explain why the WG decided to separate the OSPFv3 extensions into a different document.

* I think RFC2328 should be a Normative Reference and not an informative reference.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -23)