[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05

Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 18 August 2020 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA093A0E88; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.14.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <159776707925.23974.18030617296445881198@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:11:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/p1o7DSW8kVxkSt8I6nP7HCDbhKU>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:11:19 -0000

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2020-08-18
IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC but with nits to
address before publication

The protocol being defined seems fine, and the IANA considerations are well
constructed. I have a nagging feeling that there are new security concerns this
introduces, but haven't been able to identify anything specific. I appreciate
that the document discusses what happens when a bad-actor introduces
intentionally mis-configured flags.

Editorial Issues:

The Abstract is full of acronyms that are not universally understood, and it
buries the point of the document. Please consider rewriting to focus more
specifically on the goal of the draft (see the introduction in the shepherd's
writeup), keeping in mind that the abstract should make sense to people who
don't know yet what PE stands for. Much of what you currently have in the
Abstract can be left to the Introduction. I expect a  shorter (two or three
sentence) abstract will suit the document better.

In section 3.2: The list of three things in the list under "R and O Flags
processing" are all processing steps. But the list of 6 things under "I Flag
processing" are not all processing steps. Please change the list to only
include processing steps, and move the examples and commentary to regular
paragraphs after the processing has been specified.

Consider moving the third top-level bullet in 3.2 ("MUST be ignored") to be the
first bullet, and after that bullet say "otherwise".

Editorial Nits:

I suggest deleting "refers to" in the terminology sentences. In all cases you
mean "is" and you don't need to say "is".

The last phrase in the description of Bit 4 at the end of section 2 was
difficult to read. Consider breaking the sentence into two or more.

At the end of section 3.1, "does not have any impact on" is confusing. I think
you mean "does not change"? At ", including" the sentence becomes awkward. I
suggest breaking that into a separate sentence. Perhaps "Specifically the
procedures for advertising ... are not changed."