Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

The new version resolves the comments I had. Thanks for the effort.

Cheers,
Tal.


On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Tal,
>
>
>
> New version (11) should address all your comments.
>
> Many thanks and please let me know, if there’s anything else.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> *From: *Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 04:08
> *To: *<[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
> routing-msd.txt
> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]>
> *Resent-To: *Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> *Resent-Date: *Sun, 29 Apr 2018 04:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> + LSR mailing list.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tal.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft.
> ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication
> to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the
> draft’s lifetime as a working group document.
>
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt
> Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi
> Review Date: April 2018
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> *Summary:*
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has a couple of
> issues and a few nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to
> the IESG.
>
> *Comments:*
>
>    - The Security Considerations should be more detailed. The reference
>    to RFC 7770 is a good start, but please add more details about potential
>    attacks. For example, what happens if there is a spoofed MSD with a low MSD
>    value? What is the impact of such an attack?
>    - Section 3:
>
>
>    - The description of the Length field says “minimum of 2”, implying it
>       can be higher than 2.
>       On the other hand, the Value field: “consists of a 1 octet sub-type
>       (IANA Registry) and 1 octet value.”, which implies that the Length is equal
>       to 2.
>       Please align the two descriptions, i.e., if flexibility for future
>       sub-types is required, please change the description of Value to allow
>       longer values.
>       - The comment applies to Section 4 as well.
>
> *Nits:*
>
>    - The term “minimum MSD”, which translates to “minimum maximum SID
>    Depth” should be explained.
>    - The term “maximum MSD” appears twice in the document, which seems
>    either redundant, or a typo (did you mean minimum MSD?).
>    - The acronym SID should be spelled out on its first use.
>    - The acronyms RI and LSA should be added to the Terminology
>    subsection.
>    - Section 1.1.1 and Section 2 are both titled “Terminology”. It would
>    be best to merge Section 1.1 into Section 2, and avoid the duplicate title.
>    - “each node/link a given SR path” -> “each node/link of a given SR
>    path”
>    - “nodes and links which has been configured” -> “nodes and links that
>    have been configured”
>    - “laso”->”also”
>    - “Other Sub-types other than defined” -> “Sub-types other than
>    defined”
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tal Mizrahi.
>
>
>