IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-07.txt

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 27 June 2013 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 4743321F9C52 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t831tzjZwpkk for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAB421F9C2F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5954A2CC48; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:33:24 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3l1624oZ0c2d; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:33:23 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5DF2CC3C; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:33:22 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <51C89A1D.10404@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:33:22 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A24320F0-DB61-41DA-BB39-AFD17FDAA577@piuha.net>
References: <51C89A1D.10404@ericsson.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-07.txt
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:33:29 -0000

Thank you for the review, Suresh. Steve et al, do you have thoughts on these? FWIW, I think the question on 2.3 is quite important.

Jari

On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-07.txt
> Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
> Review Date: 2013/06/24
> IESG Telechat date: 2013/06/27
> 
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational
> RFC but I do have a few comments that the authors may want to consider.
> 
> Minor
> =====
> 
> * Section 2.3
> 
> The following sentence is a bit confusing. How does a mobile user
> connect to a new gateway without reinitiating a connection? Can you
> please clarify or reword.
> 
> "The mobile user ought to be able to discover and then connect to the
> current most efficient gateway without having to reinitiate the connection."
> 
> * Section 4.1. Requirement 5
> 
> Shouldn't there be a requirement here that states what kind of damage is
> allowed and prohibited in case a hub node is compromised?
> 
> * Section 4.1. Requirement 12
> 
> It is unclear what this requirement means. Is the requirement for the
> solution to integrate with multicast routing protocols to come up with a
> different (and optimized) multicast ADVPN topology or to simply allow
> the advpn to carry (flattened out) multicast traffic?
> 
> * Section 4.1. Requirement 14
> 
> Are there any special requirements that L3VPN poses on top of what is
> required for carrying generic IP traffic? If so, can you elaborate here.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email