Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

Christer Holmberg <> Mon, 08 August 2016 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16BF12D670 for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIFxZhyTiv6a for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E747712B068 for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-c91fe700000009bd-b6-57a8c12720d2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 39.C5.02493.721C8A75; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:28:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:28:07 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02
Thread-Index: AQHR8XpFmk8icDJLjUeUNzKh9hnEBKA/UOFw
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 17:28:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BBC3533ESESSMB208erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprIIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7rq7mwRXhBlcvMlqc/XCF1eLqq88s Fhv+bGR3YPaY8nsjq8eSJT+ZPL5c/swWwBzFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAldH+fTZzwf+cisfXFrE3 MP6P72Lk5JAQMJH4/X0/cxcjF4eQwHpGifZHHVDOYkaJVbtfsHYxcnCwCVhIdP/TBomLCJxj lDh87QITSLewgIvEwgmLmUFsEQFXiTOPd7OB1IsIGEk8OSEKEmYRUJH4fK2FDcTmFfCVWPTn GhvE/A5GiUWLr7OCJDiBehdvOAk2h1FATOL7qTVg85kFxCVuPZnPBHGpgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP /7FC2EoSi25/ZgLZyyyQL3HvJCvELkGJkzOfsExgFJ6FZNIshKpZSKogSnQkFuz+xAZha0ss W/iaGcY+c+AxE7L4Akb2VYyixanFxbnpRkZ6qUWZycXF+Xl6eaklmxiBEXVwy2+rHYwHnzse YhTgYFTi4VUoXx4uxJpYVlyZe4hRgoNZSYT3+t4V4UK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5 /V8qhgsJpCeWpGanphakFsFkmTg4pRoYa89enHqGzyHA1q2noFB9Wafsy+jYbz5ZC5NvTjp8 7OcrtfbgV/1/Yr4Vrzl0I2uqnp+c+WPp2w4+m0s2sLTf4GMxaBf8snLJf20mLrGnaxUeT2mX jOhq+1h8T3x6a/P6Aq1tz7ue2h9rWmmo72d0ITjs3lbXx3d+V5lvjb04N23xDKliExltJZbi jERDLeai4kQAl8szC6QCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 17:28:15 -0000


>Thanx for your review.
>ISO 10589 is the base specification for IS-IS and there is a reference to it in the document.
>This is where you will find details about Link State PDUs.
>I would be reluctant to include any sort of summary description of an LSP in this document out of fear that it might be seen as differing from the base protocol specification.

I think it would be useful to place that reference also in the Abstract, and in the problem statement, before you start talking about the LSP.

You don't have to add an LSP description, simply a reference so that it is easy for me to know where to get more information - without having to look for the reference elsewhere in the document :)



From: Christer Holmberg []
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>
Document:                       draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02
Reviewer:                         Christer Holmberg
Review Date:                   6 August 2016
IETF LC End Date:            15 August 2016
IETF Telechat Date:        N/A

The document is well written, and almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC, but I have a couple of editorial comments that I'd like the authors to address.
Major Issues:    None
Minor Issues:    None
Editorial Issues:
The Abstract says:
"Corruption of the Remainining Lifetime Field in a Link State PDU can go undetected.  In certain scenarios this may cause or exacerbate flooding storms.  It is also a possible denial of service attack vector.  This document defines a backwards compatible solution to this problem."
...and the first sentence of the Problem Statement says:
"Each Link State PDU (LSP) includes a Remaining Lifetime field."
I have no idea what a Link State PDU is, and there is no introduction to what the draft is all about. The text jumps direction into the work.
So, please add a reference to Link State PDU (LSP), and please give a little bit of introduction text what context/environment this is all about. I assume there is some core document which describes the context/environment where the Link State PDU is used?