Re: [Bier] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-10

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jeffrey,

I’m okay with your update.
The introduction could be clarified a bit more, but you’re right, a newbie will read another document.

Cheers,

  Vincent

> Le 24 mars 2022 à 23:52, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Vicent, Alvaro,
> 
> I have posted -11 revision to address comments from you.
> @Vincent Roca - please see zzh> below.
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Roca via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:30 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-10
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Reviewer: Vincent Roca
> Review result: Ready
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate’s ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> I have no comment regarding the security part, little is said in section 6 which seems appropriate. The three RFCs referenced are appropriate and I agree with the authors the present document does not change the situation.
> 
> However, I have a few comments on non-SecDir aspects, so feel free to ignore it.
> 
> For someone who's not aware of the topic, the abstract and introduction are really obscur and of little help to understand the context (e.g., no mention of multicast).
> After reading the abstract of RFC8279, then everything became clear.
> Sure, RFC8279 is prominently mentioned in the introduction, yet I think a sentence to position this document in the full architecture would be very helpful.
> 
> Zzh> I hope updated introduction section makes it a bit clearer.
> 
> Also, the document makes use of several acronyms that are not defined:
> Section 1 mentions BFERs that is never defined/expended.
> Section 2 mentions BFRs that is defined only in section 3.
> 
> Zzh> Fixed.
> 
> Finally, shouldn't step 4 be rewritten to highlight the case where RC(BC(X)),  is empty as in:
>        4.  if (RC(BC(X) non empty)
>             then run AG on RC(BC(X)
>             else throw an exception.
> As explained in Section 4, this is an exception caused by a bad network design.
> 
> Zzh> I did not change here, because a router always run the AG on a topology. If the topology is empty, not exception/error is thrown - the result is just that not routes will be found.
> 
> Typo:
> 
> - Section 2: mistake, this is probably RFC 8444 and not 8441.
>>  The definition for the BAR and IPA fields in [RFC8401] and [RFC8441]
>>  are updated as following.
> 
> Zzh> Thanks for spotting it. Fixed.
> Zzh> Appreciate your review and comments!
> Zzh> Jeffrey
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>   Vincent
>