[bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 21 October 2021 13:56 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CA53A169C; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir@ietf.org, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.39.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <163482456418.1290.15862948160080741503@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:56:04 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/39OtmfIXGzApiAXfbo0RzdY9lHA>
Subject: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:56:05 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Julien Meuric for the rtg-dir review. Please reply to it. (1) §4: - T is the AR Type field (2 bits) that defines the AR role of the ... o 11 (decimal 3) = RESERVED What should a receiver do if the reserved value is received? (2) §4: Each AR-enabled node MUST understand and process the AR type field in the PTA (Flags field) of the routes, and MUST signal the corresponding type (1 or 2) according to its administrative choice. "MUST understand and process the AR type field" >From a normative action point of view, this statement has no value as it is equivalent to saying that the AR node has to support this document... Please remove the normative statement. (3) §5.1: "The Replicator-AR and Regular-IR routes are generated according to section 3." s/3/4 (4) §7: "As described in section 3..." s/3/4 (5) §5.2: The non-existence of an AR-REPLICATOR results in the AS-LEAF having to use regular IR. That seems like the right/only action. However, because the AS-LEAF is defined as a node with "poor replication performance", it concerns me that a rogue replicator can use a non-REPLICATOR type with the objective of impacting the application (as described in the Introduction). The Security Considerations already mention an attack on the AR-REPLICATOR. It would be good if this other vector was also added.
- [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
- Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)