[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-04.txt

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 06 June 2014 15:33 UTC

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPgZyp+W9K2P40R06OGBV9X6XTvQ==
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:33:28 +0000
Message-ID: <3CAC599D-A4C7-4E09-944B-E834667F94E1@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6265D48AB9C88943A376794126C57DB5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/j07KtEEpTFenYP8kFWvG3d-okY4
Cc: "<rtg-dir@ietf.org>" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-04.txt
Precedence: list

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-04.txt
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review Date: June 6, 2014
IETF LC End Date: ?
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:

This document is really well written and very comprehensive. It is clear, complete (modulo minor comments below), and accurate.

Minor Issues:

The Security Considerations of this document are oversimplified to say "check the security of all these references". I think that some more detailed description of the security aspects is necessary. For example, checking the security on the cited documents, I do not believe there is discussion of security issues introduced by measuring (effect of synthetic packets, etc). A second security element is compromising the measurement itself, and associated implications. Lastly, the OAM Authentication TLV protects against forged/crafted OAM packets. Some deeper description of the tradeoffs of using it as it pertains affecting a measurement would be useful.

Nits:

A small nit, in the Abbreviations section, it would be useful to add a citation to [OAM] next to the acronym definition to be prescriptive about the definition used for the acronym (and there's a comma missing)

OLD:
OAM Operations, Administration and Maintenance

NEW:
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance [OAM]

Thanks,

Carlos.

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-loss-de… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Susan Hares
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Tal Mizrahi
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Tal Mizrahi
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-los… Adrian Farrel