Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-01

"jmh.direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 31 July 2015 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E59E1B32B9; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 OBMEBUh9ho1O; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743A11B351F; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439DF74002C; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.61.100.75] (mobile-166-171-057-070.mycingular.net [166.171.57.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CDEA1C0455; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:05:48 -0400
Message-ID: <thvwchvy8wclaedm4odiuleq.1438373148927@email.android.com>
Importance: normal
From: "jmh.direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management@ietf.org, "forces@ietf.org" <forces@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.samsung.android.email_3880676985862850"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/8MfUPvDnDU5Lhj4g0c2X-_fBef8>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-01
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:05:54 -0000

Thanks Alia.  Those all look like good catches.Yours,Joel


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> 
Date: 07/31/2015  3:47 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management@ietf.org, forces@ietf.org 
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-01 

Hi Bhumip, Evangelos, and Jamal,

Thanks for your work on this draft. As is customary, I have done my AD review of the draft before asking that it go forward to IETF Last Call.

I have only a few quibbles, so I have advanced this to IETF Last Call.  It is on the IESG telechat on Sept 3.    Please do respond and update the draft during IETF Last Call.  As you well know, having authors who are extremely responsive helps greatly with getting these final steps done.

Minor quibbles:

1) In Sec. 4.4.3, two of the capabilities are described as placeholders.  Can you please clarify what the expected standardized behavior is?  I imagine that the capabilities are filled out as described - though with unstandardized information.

2) In Sec. 4.2, could you please provide a reference to the syslog severity levels?  For instance, the IANA registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/syslog-parameters/syslog-parameters.xhtml#syslog-parameters-2 ) and/or RFC 3164 would be lovely.  

3) In the Security Considerations section, a few words about why it is ok to trust a CE to create a connection to another CE would be useful.  

Thanks,Alia