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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Mon, 08 August 2016 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF7112D82C for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.757
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYzs9hLbps9L for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D936912D5D3 for <>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12374; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470663559; x=1471873159; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=eqaLzt3CyyA6KGcLJ59EYJsSFvCB0d1gb++jdQMaJAA=; b=NJUCej6/IhTy8Gc1CrorqGckgG4TEPwJwtJ+jf/3V3xIAjYFL7f9S5jO c+NcEQo5FijFgsByR9Hp1pGk2EVnrUxrrkhi6XRxtrhBsyWLGrMxiNIK3 THcFhKQgOPdr628SaT6uZoXwHz8U8CUVnku2W9kd+aXX81aVDUFnXNQzw Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,490,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="135319627"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Aug 2016 13:39:18 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u78DdIPR006298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:39:18 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:39:17 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:39:17 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02
Thread-Index: AdHwAkwUcT4hVHRjR9KTLedJakLzFgBd4LRg
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 13:39:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_89d171e8f3b446eb99274208b6987993XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 13:39:22 -0000

Christer -

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 hope this addresses your concerns.


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?