[Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-05

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 05 November 2012 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB51721F887C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:22:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjBSDTw8WUqJ for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:22:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from auth.a.painless.aa.net.uk (a.painless.aa.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A55221F8828 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mightyatom.folly.org.uk ([81.187.254.250]) by a.painless.aa.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>) id 1TVPRO-0005Sc-JK; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:22:22 +0000
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:23:35 +0000
Message-Id: <1352132615.23621.1264.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:22:27 -0000

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. (Sorry it is rather late).

Document: draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-05
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 5 November 2012
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-17
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary: Almost ready.  Just a couple of minor nits.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
None

Nits/editorial comments:
s2.2:
> RFC 4552 [RFC4552] describes how the authentication header and
>    encapsulating security payload mechanism can be used to protect
>    OSPFv3 packets.
I guess this piece ought to say that AH, ESP, SPI etc come out of IPsec
and give a reference a bit earlier in the section - IPsec is mentioned
but no reference given in the 2nd para of the section.

s3, para 1: 
>    As discussed, neither version of OSPF meets the requirements of
>    inter-connection or intra-connection replay protection.
Neither of the discussions above mention the phrases 'inter-connection'
or 'intra-connection'.  For OSPFv3 this is implicit because 'no replay
protection is provided'.  For OSPFv2 it would be desirable to explain
how the problems outlined in s2.1 relate to these terms. 
   
s3, para 4: The first two sentences contain the phrase 
'a number of attacks that are possible because of a per-packet replay.'
Ther sentences can be easily combined

s3, para 5:
>    Unfortunately, OSPFv2 does
>    not have a procedure for dealing with sequence numbers reaching the
>    maximum age.
Is 'age' the correct term here?  'maximum value' perhaps?