Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-07

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wes,

Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.

The changes as discussed below will be updated in the next version of the
document.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 7:15 PM Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Reviewer: Wes Hardaker
> Review result: Ready
>
> I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-07
> Reviewer: Wes Hardaker
> Review Date: 2022-09-18
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-20
>
> Summary: Ready
>
> Major Concerns: None
> Minor Concerns: Just nits and comments
>
> Nits and comments:
>
> - In the introduction you might point to the section numbers where
>   future things are defined.  The one that drew my attention was the
>   local interface ipv4 address TLV section (3) which is mentioned in
>   4th paragraph in the introduction, but the section itself felt like
>   it came about suddenly.  I'd add a "(section 3)" tagging to the
>   introduction to introduce where it will be discussed later.  But
>   this is a very minor nit/suggestion.
>

KT> Ack


>
> - In multiple places it talks about "strict-mode is enabled on the
>   link" or similar.  It is unclear from the context where this
>   enabling is happening, and I'd be tempted to add a bit more
>   operational context such as "strict-mode is enabled by the
>   operator..." or similar.
>

KT> It is understood that it is the operator that is enabling BFD or BFD
strict mode. We can clarify this in a couple of places like the
introduction and the procedures sections. I don't think it would help much
to insert "operator" at every sentence in the document which discusses
enablement. I hope that would address your comment.


>
> - In the state discussions the phrase "or higher" is used to indicate
>   multiple states.  The original OSPF RFC generally uses different
>   terminology: "or greater".  It might be wise to switch to the
>   original terminology instead.
>

KT> RFC2328 uses the word "higher" in describing the Init state in section
10.1 but then uses "greater" in the other state descriptions. We will keep
the word "higher" in the update Init state, but perhaps change to "greater"
in another place where we reference 2-way. in the document.

Thanks,
Ketan