Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hannes,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Hannes Gredler <[e-mail]> wrote:

> i can be moved to contributors list as well if it helps.
>

Thanks - that would get us to 5 authors, which is the RFC Editor limit.

Practically, having watched through many of these AUTH48 periods - they
really
drag on with lots of authors.

Thanks,
Alia



> On 24.09.2015, at 19:27, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alia,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the review and comments.
>
> I have updated the draft and draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-05 is posted.
>
>
>
> Authors list has been reduced to 6 and one author moved to contributor’s
> list.
>
> Here is the list of other comments and resolutions
>
>
>
> 1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to
>
>    express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers
>
>    node properties conveyed by tags."
>
>
>
>    What is the subject that "to express and act upon"?  Is it a router?
>
>    Please clean up.
>
> <Shraddha>changed  to
>
> “The node-tags can be used to express and apply locally-defined
>
> network policies which is a very useful operational capability.”
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list."  Perhaps
>
>    "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer?
>
> <Shraddha>Changed to
>
> “The administrative tag list within the TLV SHOULD be considered
>
> an unordered list.”
>
>
>
>
>
> 3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of"  should be
>
>    "[RFC7490] defines a method of"
>
> <Shraddha> Updated
>
>
>
> 4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional
>
>    information to an IGP snooper.  It would be useful to have some thoughts
>
>    about that.
>
> <Shraddha>
>
> Node admin tags may be used by operators to indicate geographical location
> or other
>
> sensitive information.
>
> As indicated in <xref target="RFC2328"/> and <xref target="RFC5340"/> OSPF
> authentication
>
> mechanisms do not provide  confidentiality and the information carried in
> node admin tags could be leaked to an IGP
>
> snooper.
>
>
>
> 5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that
>
>    was mentioned in Sec 3.1
>
>
>
> <Shraddha> Updated
>
>
>
> Rgds
>
> Shraddha
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:01 AM
> *To:* Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>; OSPF List <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
>
>
>
> Thanks Alias - Speaking as Document Shepherd…
>
>
>
> Authors,
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you require any assistance - these all seem like
> good comments.
>
>
>
> *From: *OSPF <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alia Atlas <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 3:02 PM
> *To: *OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> As is customary, I have done my AD review of
> draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
>
> before requesting IETF Last Call.
>
>
>
> First, I'd like to thank the working group and Shraddha, Harish, Hannes,
> Rob,
>
> Anton, Zhenbin, and Bruno for their hard work on the draft.  However, this
> short
>
> draft has 7 authors, which is a couple over the author limit for RFCs.
> Experience
>
> has shown that it takes much longer to process a draft through AUTH48 and
> the
>
> other steps necessary (responsiveness to comments, agreement, etc) with a
> large
>
> number of authors.  While I am willing to be persuaded - on or off list -
> that all 7
>
> of the current authors are actively editing, I would prefer that a smaller
> number be
>
> selected as the active editors.
>
>
>
> In some cases, a draft represents a multi-vendor effort requiring a
> significant commitment from more than 5 authors and I’d specifically
> request a deviation from the author limit. I don’t see this to be the case
> with this draft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While that discussion is ongoing, here are my technical comments.  In
> general,
>
> the draft is in good shape but could use some English grammar editing; I
> have not
>
> tried to indicate all the places where "the" is missing, for instance.
>
>
>
> 1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to
>
>    express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers
>
>    node properties conveyed by tags."
>
>
>
>    What is the subject that "to express and act upon"?  Is it a router?
>
>    Please clean up.
>
>
>
> 2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list."  Perhaps
>
>    "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer?
>
>
>
> 3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of"  should be
>
>    "[RFC7490] defines a method of"
>
>
>
> 4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional
>
>    information to an IGP snooper.  It would be useful to have some thoughts
>
>    about that.
>
>
>
> When you include this, be sure and point out the the attacker would also
> require knowledge of the policies corresponding to the tags. I’d also point
> out that the policies and advertised tags are local to the OSPF routing
> domain as is done in RFC 5530.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
> 5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that
>
>    was mentioned in Sec 3.1
>
>
>
> Thanks again for the hard work.  The sooner we resolve whom the editors
> are,
>
> the sooner this draft can proceed.  Ideally, if updated by Thursday, it
> could enter
>
> IETF Last Call and make the IESG telechat on Oct 17.
>
>
>
> Oct 15 that is.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>