[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 02 May 2012 10:37 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C3921F8A36 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 03:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vz-2+SGVb9jA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 03:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E8C21F8A31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 03:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q42Ab9tT019031 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 03:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335955043; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Dfv4v73RWVbgy18z4liG6lgvt4Sb0icXWXhqGQg2YN0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=hMs2WMTygFTvhgjKo/9QuJIdLAkOEhrxiriD5t3bF7U8l7kDFdiQZqOIHrbZVj8Gc IhdYpue8h03G1F+SDHCpwpwjaPdYfhvmjcPBl2V1jt69yfwyRaxVrVIsG0TD+1yr3v I8svE3noCOP0pYdVMlOAli2K+X21672a/L+MkC3E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335955043; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Dfv4v73RWVbgy18z4liG6lgvt4Sb0icXWXhqGQg2YN0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=ZocBzkxt5Xa6EI2Q6ZJnK3ntXM6LGTsSJkiAGGgmaCX0RTq4ey6XS0l8A+rbzLqS4 2Flk3KOdEWgDZwkQY+oQiRsWF2yVTFjUx8D+803co64b5jIC86Bq5CM89EEByjHtvW zOUwpTgIzx9dZQOKITDLnDuYOmy4czL3RHz359sM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502015143.0a1cbeb8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 03:23:53 -0700
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 10:37:33 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on AppsDir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19 Title: ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN Reviewer: S. Moonesamy Review Date: May 2, 2012 IETF Last Call Date: April 12, 2012 Summary: I'll abstain from making any recommendation about publication as the L2VPN Working Group has been working on this draft since October 2004. This draft describes methods for ARP Mediation when different resolution protocols are used on either Attachment Circuit. It does not contain any Application considerations. I am not familiar with the subject. Major issues: It is not clear throughout the document whether "IP address" refers to IPv4 and IPv6 or IPv4 only. In Section 1: "In this document, we specify the procedures for VPWS services, which the PEs MUST implement in order to mediate the IP address resolution mechanism." BTW, VPWS is expanded on first use below that. It's difficult to figure out the procedures for that "MUST". In Section 4.1.2: "This document mandates that there MUST be only one CE per Attachment Circuit. However, customer facing access topologies may exist whereby more than one CE appears to be connected to the PE on a single Attachment Circuit." There is a requirement for only one CE per Attachment Circuit and yet it is mentioned that there may be cases where more than one CE appears to be connected. If there are cases when the requirement cannot be followed, why is it a requirement? In Section 8.1: "For greater security the LDP connection between two trusted PEs MUST be secured by each PE verifying the incoming connection against the configured address of the peer and authenticating the LDP messages using MD5 authentication, as described in section 2.9 of [RFC5036]." Isn't the MD5 authentication considered as obsolete? In Appendix A.1: "In an IP L2 interworking L2VPN, when an IGP on a CE connected to a broadcast link is cross-connected with an IGP on a CE connected to a point-to-point link, there are routing protocol related issues that MUST be addressed." Addressing protocol related issues is a vague requirement. Minor isues: In Section 2: "1. Discover the IP address of the locally attached CE device" Is this for IPv4 addresses only? In Section 3: "If the IP packet arrives at the ingress PE with multiple data link headers (for example in the case of bridged Ethernet PDU on an ATM Attachment Circuit), all data link headers MUST be removed from the IP packet before transmission over the PW." What is "PW"? Nits: I found the Abstract Section difficult to parse. There are four authors listed on the first page of the draft. However, there are 16 authors/editors listed in the Authors' Addresses section. Given that there is an IPR disclosure on this draft, can the document shepherd answer the following question: Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Please note that this review does not contain editorial comments. Regards, S. Moonesamy
- [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-l2vpn… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-l… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-l… S Moonesamy