[Idr] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-05

Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 21 May 2021 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4F83A0FEC; Thu, 20 May 2021 19:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.30.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162156453202.16583.7878225218187327569@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 19:35:32 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ot_qaA6Vve5a4D4p-iO1Xc3hdUM>
Subject: [Idr] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-05
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 02:35:32 -0000

Reviewer: Paul Wouters
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's  ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the  IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the  security area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat  these comments just
like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Has Nits

In section 3 it lists 1092 as "TE Metric" but RFC 7522 lists it as "TE Default
Metric". And 1116 is listed as "Unidirectional link delay variation" but RFC
8571 lists it as "Unidirectional Delay Variation". And 1117 shows "packet loss"
vs "link loss". There are more subtle differences.  Maybe ensure these terms
are synced up better, unless there is a reason these terms are
different/updated ?

      Link attributes that do not have application-specific semantics SHOULD
      NOT be advertised within the ASLA TLV.

Is there a reason why this is SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT? In other words, do
you have an example of where the SHOULD NOT would not apply? And if so, should
that be mentioned here? Same for the following SHOULD case,

In section 4, "[RFC8920] " appears without an actual link. It's either missing
the xref target, or there is a bug in rendering the xml to html?

grammar nit:
CURRENT:  They were originally defined
PROPOSED: These were originally defined