[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-04 (resend)
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 28 September 2015 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 ADD171ACED0 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 GdyHiNPCEh8a for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ABB91ACEB1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.229]) by resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Nh711r0024xDoy801h751e; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:07:05 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Nh741r0063Ge9ey01h74wt; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:07:04 +0000
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
To: draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-04.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <560973B7.9070308@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:07:03 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1443460025; bh=V0DhmyL0mTVklCcdjSrji7s9WBjjI+tLudiLOyZCWks=; h=Received:Received:From:Subject:To:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=lvpvGQUgCN5h9ar/DNKwfDs4yD5JNwDy+jb4bHtdZllOUYZ+Jr8+piDGrh6/Fa/az fTYU+Zen/M6dKz6/nLJgYPw+WA298qnDhyP9gG9GXFPfYuk33aQ6sybkBhaHhBYsVW I0/cpbv9dvEGgXsJWuGGYUUtMVFz11ZyEHizHexTt8u5gWPUK96tMOaJU8WHvRudg6 uMutHDcp9ZWBXt52BG7RoVbV2yiDiltI0dlBTJcHPvC4Hz6nZnoFBgzgVfjdWfwzt2 QZGMqOPcsSlu2nNY1gvPA547M16+YYoUHkoq0j+qICOSUoAdFPXxDq7a+Ab3Gd0g1p E6EVUFctu9iQg==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/sUcgewEy1kWfIqzBYyFrX6bcWnU>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-04 (resend)
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: <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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:07:06 -0000
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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. Major Issues: NONE Minor Issues: It would be helpful if this draft described its intended target audience. It would also benefit from having additional references providing background context for the substance of the draft. In particular, "ECMP" and "PMTUD" are used extensively, in the text and even the title of the draft. While these acronyms are expanded in the text, there are no references to definitions of them. I sought out references for ECMP. The ones I found are RFC2991 and RFC2992, which are old. Is there a more recent analysis that ought to be considered? It seems that the problem at hand comes when using ECMP for load balancing across multiple servers. Is there some reference that talks about that? (RFCs 2991 and 2992 are more general - they could apply in other contexts and don't mention this use.) The single reference in the document is to RFC4821. Is it the proper reference for PMTUD? It seems to be closely related, but it seems to be more specialized. In the Security Considerations section a possible attack is identified, and a mitigation described. But then a seemingly serious drawback to the mitigation is also described. I think this bears more discussion. Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Paul Kyzivat