Re: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com> Wed, 15 October 2014 05:44 UTC

From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00
Thread-Index: Ac/nYDNZmzKSyDByR9K6P8/qkig4XgA0/7Tw
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:44:26 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3C9014@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F48537B9A@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F48537B9A@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3C9014eusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/5JtY0w-uCER0qV7EG9iJihxHq5Q
Cc: "OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org)" <ospf@ietf.org>, "Ospf Chairs (ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org)" <ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00
Precedence: list

Hi Les,

Thanks for your review and comments.
Please see my replies in-line [Uma]:

--
Uma C.

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:44 PM
To: draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org
Cc: OSPF List (ospf@ietf.org); Ospf Chairs (ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org)
Subject: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00


Hello,



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00.



The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to improve the quality of RTG Area documents as they pass through the IETF process. This is the QA review just after WG adoption.



Summary



This draft defines a useful extension to OSPF to allow routers in other areas to be able to associate reachable addresses with a router which supports a

particular capability. I do not foresee any major hurdles in this document progressing to become an RFC.



Comments



It would be beneficial to explain why the routable address information only needs to be flooded with domain-scope

(i.e. explain how routers in the area already have this information).

[Uma]:  Sure, we shall add a statement to indicate why this is relevant for domain scope.



I suspect the security folks will likely point to the dangers of advertising local node addresses domain wide -

which may make it easier for a node in one area to be targeted from another area. The security section should

anticipate this by referencing the various OSPF authentication RFCs as the means to protect this information.



[Uma]: Though multiple areas,  as all under same administrative domain, knowing this information  through RI LSA should not be a concern as such.

             But we shall refer security RFC's relevant as you indicated.



Major Issues



No major issues found.



Minor Issues



The IANA Comsiderations section should refer to the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry defined by [RFC4970].



Nits



Abstract: Last sentence

   s/the OSPF/the term OSPF



[Uma]: Sure.



Introduction: First paragraph

   " propagated to another area, those routers in the latter area need..."



The sentence should end after "area" and a new sentence begin with "Those".

[Uma]: Sure.





Introduction: Last sentence

   s/the OSPF/the term OSPF

[Uma]: Sure.





Section 3: penultimate sentence

The phrase



  "within the body of the corresponding RI Opaque LSA"



can be removed. It repeats the first sentence of the paragraph and does not match the equivalent text in Section 4.



[Uma]: Sure. Thanks!

[OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-rout… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Re: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-… Uma Chunduri