[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-20
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 22 May 2014 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56931A024B; Thu, 22 May 2014 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 g6_POudWWByB; Thu, 22 May 2014 16:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFCA21A0248; Thu, 22 May 2014 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.36]) by mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s4MNWJoi013113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 May 2014 19:32:22 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com s4MNWJoi013113
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1400801542; bh=6EZCnk5+3sgtiHoL/h1BonDZCys=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=kFzycJz+lcRsoJlJUI3sp9uJIDa+cauFoUOU/MBhdFxSU5Tj4bo2as3s2Dbbx37y9 m8m+IZwV246XBivm61LfMTmZfo7fGggVKzI7BqEsukY1YXQ4o3FfqSkunQQ1tfCwhN SKrONHZSHt+OsEvtNZOIYP5HRc2y/1T8UhZs2ngU=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd01.lss.emc.com s4MNWJoi013113
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 22 May 2014 16:32:06 -0700
Received: from mxhub30.corp.emc.com (mxhub30.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.170]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s4MNW5LJ015389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 May 2014 19:32:06 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.64]) by mxhub30.corp.emc.com ([128.222.70.170]) with mapi; Thu, 22 May 2014 19:32:05 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "tnadeau@lucidvision.com" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "zali@cisco.com" <zali@cisco.com>, "nobo@cisco.com" <nobo@cisco.com>, "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 19:32:04 -0400
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-20
Thread-Index: Ac92Fgm6xi+5RVqyQBG++mFam22lvQ==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C662E05@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public, Resumes
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7sZqTcX9WQPhujaLsIEmdtcGPUg
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-20
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 23:32:29 -0000
And the -20 version is also ready. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 7:27 PM > To: tnadeau@lucidvision.com; zali@cisco.com; nobo@cisco.com; General Area > Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org) > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Black, David > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-19 > > Additional text has been added to the -19 version to address this remaining > topic. The -19 version is Ready. > > Thanks, > --David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Black, David > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 10:20 AM > > To: tnadeau@lucidvision.com; zali@cisco.com; nobo@cisco.com; General Area > > Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org) > > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Black, David > > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-18 > > > > The -18 version of this draft responds to all of the comments in the > > Gen-ART review of -17, including the request for coordination w/the > > OPS area, although I wasn't exactly expecting that to occur on the > > main IETF list. > > > > The -18 version is ready with one small nit - The following text has > > been added to the introduction: > > > > This memo does not define a compliance requirement for a system that > > only implements BFD version 0. This is a reflection of a considered > > and deliberate decision by the BFD WG. > > > > An explanation of the rationale for that decision would help - I suggest > > adding the following text and a suitable reference to the end of the text > > above: > > > > because the BFD version 0 protocol may deadlock and hence SHOULD NOT > > be used, as explained further in [RFCxxxx]. > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Black, David > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:31 PM > > > To: tnadeau@lucidvision.com; zali@cisco.com; nobo@cisco.com; General Area > > > Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org) > > > Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Black, David > > > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17 > > > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > > > > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > > you may receive. > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17 > > > Reviewer: David L. Black > > > Review Date: April 16, 2014 > > > IETF LC End Date: April 28, 2014 > > > > > > Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues > > > described in the review. > > > > > > This draft is a MIB module for the BFD protocol, which is an important > low- > > > level routing protocol. The draft is reasonable for a MIB draft; one > needs > > > to go read the protocol documents to understand how the protocol works, > and > > > significant portions of the text are derived from the usual MIB > > "boilerplate" > > > as one would expect. The "Brief Description of MIB Objects" is indeed > > > brief, but reasonable. The shepherd writeup indicates that there are > > > multiple implementations. > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > > > This MIB contains many writable objects, so the authors should > > > take note of the IESG statement on writable MIB modules: > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html > > > > > > I did not see this mentioned in the shepherd writeup. If the OPS Area > > > has not been consulted, I strongly suggest doing so during IETF Last > > > Call, e.g., starting with Benoit Claise (AD). > > > > > > Minor issues: > > > > > > The security considerations section includes considerations for > > > unauthorized modification of bfdSessAdminStatus and bfdSessOperStatus, > > > but omits the corresponding considerations for bfdAdminStatus and > > > bfdSessNotificationsEnable. Both of the latter objects are global, > > > so significant damage can be inflicted via these objects with a > > > small number of unauthorized modifications, so they need to be > > > included in the first list of sensitive objects. > > > > > > I suggest that the authors recheck the entire MIB to ensure that > > > every object or table that should be included in the security > > > considerations section is appropriately included. > > > > > > Also, as a General Variable, would bfdSessNotificationsEnable be better > > > named bfdNotificationsEnable, as it's not in the BFD Session Table? > > > > > > I did not see a compliance requirement for a system that only > > > implements BFD protocol version 0. That absence should at least be > > > mentioned somewhere. For example, if this reflects a considered and > > > deliberate decision by the WG, that should be mentioned in the > > > introduction. > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > > > In the security considerations for authentication-related objects: > > > > > > OLD > > > In order for these sensitive information > > > from being improperly accessed, implementers MAY wish to disallow > > > access to these objects. > > > NEW > > > In order to prevent this sensitive information > > > from being improperly accessed, implementers MAY disallow > > > access to these objects. > > > > > > idnits 2.13.01 found a truly minor nit that should be corrected when > > > the draft is next revised: > > > > > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of > > > draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-04 > > > > > > it also generated a warning that probably does not reflect an actual > > problem: > > > > > > -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may > > > have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If > you > > > have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to > > grant > > > the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can > > ignore > > > this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 > disclaimer. > > > (See the Legal Provisions document at > > > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --David > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > > > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > > > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > > > david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > > > ----------------------------------------------------
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-20 Black, David
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mi… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mi… Nobo Akiya (nobo)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mi… Jari Arkko