[Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186AC1294B8; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOTic97sWkkT; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F2131294B0; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id u132so18797388wmg.0; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XjpdZn+xhImS0GfqFy1hBzuOYM1sCxSQ3fU+h91eCPs=; b=ovaVLMicaUDUbK5n7SiU3W53yP9Qt6T/NTGvA+G+e2N7rxJvEDCLt380nw+oZiIQE9 +TYWHAFhxr3umk7JjhFyCGCRjLUpPYcCPYlFw1UILS/kTZkd5oODq3BmDogxbmn/ynNB pItkwhlvWdQd/YtKMDh99PQoTTy2kTc4qWU2Be6dpp5aQIM11AZl9B0XO6dwrl3w266d fW57KYgbAyLEW5YzjxPKiyjvTEQdZq0rJbSfgLJ92lD/2yE6N9dYmOFq1udGctYLbaLJ GN0qJBxQTjv9az9CtYyx7UhV/zijxuB6vPRHBceviukbkyMI0PumTfmCZH+lW4zoguct 64vQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XjpdZn+xhImS0GfqFy1hBzuOYM1sCxSQ3fU+h91eCPs=; b=XPXZiQva4lS9ipljsJYSM+i2kx2GuOn0iTFNEldIoBn+xqrYfr/zi0dKKRxT3ZpbUS qkRiuNB06FM6T/EMUvarh7q9l35Rla3PIcEmR3sFoM4qJuJYFrnn8C2Kz2AKIYDbv6u9 4RCZk9kVvXVkgsAcH4k9zPcwolGFQegJg0UlX7Sv9kqd3PI64LNl75QpyEa/OCw+G+iE 49butHG0Q4dMowVaey7oznn9p9VVD5TRLf7jaRo65GJnk2zzWehZKrO+CXHeDvQPuLQH ykuTuKUtZGSvLfAj4vJcCko+ejbM0mi/ttYVT5YmnrjJ7yk6DsmRriXhoK2w8Bk442SY w4yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Nbm49ym+BQWEG7OJaW3766gcoF+XWsKeUPpJVNN4iGVfgsxZ8Dq/IHQc4FTrXz2BqszRNF3YjB94xHw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j21mr3343571wmd.70.1489765609312; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:46:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1reSNUyDZwUN1tB4zJAJcfs40618_x5DpFofr99cQc3B0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11444c42f1237c054aef15b4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/IIAC6gnD1vwJGBamFMSzh595Nhs>
Subject: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:46:56 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01.
First, I would like to thank the authors - Les, Stefano, and Wim - for
their work on this document.

I do have a few minor issues that need to be fixed ASAP.   I will, however,
go ahead and issue a 3 week IETF Last Call for it so that, if the authors
act promptly, it can be on the April 13 telechat.

1) This draft pretty clearly should obsolete RFC 6822, but the header
claims to merely
update it.

 2) Sec 2.6.2: " Point-to-point adjacency setup MUST be done through the
use of the
         three-way handshaking procedure as defined in [RFC5303] in order to
         prevent a non-MI capable neighbor from bringing up an adjacency
         prematurely based on reception of an IIH with an IID-TLV for a non-
         zero instance."
     While obviously the 3-way handshake in RFC5303 is fine, given that
different MAC addresses are used, I don't see how a non-MI capable neighbor
would receive and process an IIH with an IID-TLV where IID != 0.

3) In Appendix A:" Clarification that the IID-TLV is only included in Pt-Pt
   associated with non-zero instances has been added.  This addresses
   Errata ID #4519."
   In Sec 2.6.2, it says "The presence or absence of the IID-TLV in an IIH
indicates that the
   neighbor does or does not support this extension, respectively.
   Therefore, all IIHs sent on a point-to-point circuit by an MI-RTR
   MUST include an IID-TLV.  This includes IIHs associated with IID #0."
which is a direct
   contradiction and needed since the IID-TLV is used as a capability
indication.  The
   simplest solution is to remove the claim from the Appendix.

4) In the IANA considerations, the references should be updated to point to
this document, and most particularly if it obsoletes RFC 6822.