Re: [bess] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Fri, 27 April 2018 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCC8120725; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 01:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gYOvQBrKQX4G; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 01:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FF35120454; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 01:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A5795705A4CE8; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:04:16 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMA423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.156) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:04:17 +0100
Received: from DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.5]) by dggema423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.156]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:04:08 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdPd/fy+1lbow/fjRpC60OYjV+HL7A==
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:04:08 +0000
Message-ID: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719553048DB8@DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.57.113.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719553048DB8DGGEMA503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/sZmyDbMVznyH1vFxEAw2FIyNOHk>
Subject: Re: [bess] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:04:24 -0000

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks for considering my comments. It looks OK to me.

B.R.
Jia

发件人: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2018年4月26日 4:44
收件人: Hejia (Jia) <hejia@huawei.com>; bess-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org
抄送: rtg-dir@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
主题: RE: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt

Hi,

-01 revision has been posted – with the nits addressed and a security consideration section added.

Thanks!
Jeffrey

From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 1:41 PM
To: Hejia (Jia) <hejia@huawei.com<mailto:hejia@huawei.com>>; bess-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:bess-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt

Hi Jia,

Thanks for your review and feedback. I’ve fixed the nits and we are discussing the security consideration text to be added.

Jeffrey

From: Hejia (Jia) <hejia@huawei.com<mailto:hejia@huawei.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:16 AM
To: bess-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:bess-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all@ietf.org>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt

Hello,

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation/

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.

As this document has recently been adopted by the working group, my focus for the review is on providing a new perspective on the work, with the intention of catching any issues early on in the document's life cycle.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir


Document draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: 16 April 2018
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary
The document clearly describes the problem and specifies the MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation procedures. However, I have a minor concern that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.

Comments
The current version of the draft lacks security considerations. Since the work in this draft is about interoperation between MVPN and MSDP, security considerations are need IMHO.

Nits:
1) Section 2, "...but [RFC6514] does not specify that it advertise MSDP SA messages to those MSDP peers... " , s/advertise/advertises
2) Section 2, "While MSDP Source Active routes contain the source, group and RP address of a given multicast flow,....", s/address/addresses


B.R.
Jia