Re: [CCAMP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with COMMENT)

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Tue, 04 August 2015 18:43 UTC

From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQzj3kP50nNG6clk+YHn454/wNRJ38LBJg
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 18:43:16 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729CF975B@dfweml706-chm>
References: <20150803224345.3041.26135.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150803224345.3041.26135.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/KPLZhg35tYicFg_9MhVtMWtwvRc>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Ben,

Thanks for providing your good comments and idnits check. 

Please see inline for my response. 

Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 5:44 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5 (security considerations) says: "This document does not
introduce any further security issues other
   than those discussed in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]."

While I don’t doubt the statement is true, it would be helpful to show
the thought behind it. In this case, the draft adds new data elements to
the OSPF TE LSA. Please consider adding a very short discussion on how
the security implications of those elements is similar to or different
from the previously existing data elements.


YOUNG>> 

   As with [RFC4203], it specifies the
   contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2.  As Opaque LSAs are not used for
   Shortest Path First (SPF) computation or normal routing, the
   extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
   Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
   Transport.  [RFC3630] notes that the
   security mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs
   carried in OSPFv2. 

   If you like, I can add these text in Section 5. Please let me know. 


Nits:

Please expand TE and LSA on first mention.

YOUNG>> Yes, TE (Traffic Engineering) and LSA (Link State Advertisement) will be expanded on first mention.



idnits thinks the reference to [G.694.1] is not cited in the body. Is the
reference needed?

YOUNG>> The reference will be removed.

[CCAMP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
Re: [CCAMP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Leeyoung