Re: [Isis-wg] New version of draft-wei-isis-tlv

lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Mon, 08 March 2010 05:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D6B3A68F2 for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:01:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.356
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RELAY_IS_221=2.222]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gQeshukqYff for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:01:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F113A68EE for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:01:16 -0800 (PST)
To: isis-wg@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:16:27 +0800
Message-ID: <OFEA0036D5.D7274D12-ON482576E0.001CF911-482576E0.001CF91C@china.mobile>
X-Mailer: Lotus Domino Web Server Release 6.5.5FP1 April 14, 2006
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on cmccmta/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.5FP1 | April 14, 2006) at 2010-03-08 13:01:21
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_mixed 001CF915482576E0_="
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, chopps@rawdofmt.org, daniel@olddog.co.uk, Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New version of draft-wei-isis-tlv
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:01:19 -0000

Hi, IS-IS experts,

02 version has been posted just now. Modified according to Tony Li's comments. 

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
13911635816
Department of Network Technology
China Mobile Research Institute
2010-03-08

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

发件人: Tony Li
发送时间: 2010-03-06 01:24:42
收件人: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com; 'isis-wg'
抄送: rcallon@juniper.net; Chris Hopps; daniel@olddog.co.uk; adrian.farrel@huawei.com
主题: Re: [Isis-wg] New version of draft-wei-isis-tlv




On 3/5/10 4:23 AM, "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com"
<lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com > wrote:

> Hello ISIS fans,
> 
> A new version of draft-wei-isis-tlv was submitted to IETF just now. Comments
> are welcome. Thank you all for your discussion here.


Hi,

I've reviewed the new version of the draft and have a few comments:

1) I believe that we have some amount of agreement that the TLV for
backtracking purges is of some value.  However, the situations where it does
add value are all of the legitimate cases to initiate a purge.  As has been
noted, the implementations that generate a purge on a checksum error not
operating within the spec and should be repaired.  It is wholly unreasonable
to expect that an implementation that has this defect is going to
subsequently implement the new TLV.  Thus, the discussion of the purge on
checksum case is not a motivator for the addition of this TLV.  As such, I
recommend that the text discussing this case be removed.

2) You state "ISIS protocol is vulnerable to purge packet propagation."  The
use of the word "vulnerability" implies that there is a defect, and further
implies that there is a security defect.  Neither of these is true.  I
recommend that you reword this sentence to something like: "The IS-IS
protocol floods purges throughout an area, regardless of which IS initiated
the purge.  If a network operator would like to investigate the cause of the
purge, it is difficult to determine the origin of the purge."

3) Your section on security considerations is insufficient.  We need to
clearly specify how this TLV is used when constructing a purge.  What is
needed here is not very difficult.  Something similar to: "If this TLV is
used in conjunction with IS-IS authentication mechanisms, then the purge is
constructed by removing the original contents of the LSP, leaving only the
LSP header, adding this TLV and then adding the IS-IS authentication TLV.
This document amends the behavior of [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]."

4) Editorial stuff: you appear to be having some formatting issues, whereby
you only get one section per page.  May I recommend xml2rfc as a fine tool?
Also, your draft needs some extensive proofreading.

Regards,
Tony