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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Tue, 14 October 2014 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0DD1A6F68 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.286
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dQQHNXGnnWd for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 628871A6F67 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8755; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413258268; x=1414467868; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=d2wTCGXQ1lHEsos2PN2VRRPeJTQX3AzXiX+21kXoUE4=; b=PUkqLddPs77CiXn1C3B0a7lQIkQiKXMOVcnZZ9Z3o8a2IkJoO014aspf f7eyhPCUjCbbxvqNHKO/CRosRxW2mK7kgeE/xselC1EFs8FJ0By9DVkCn C4VqTaf6YeeJdr29MD+69UdEsW36Vf+Z33K4cWlqLbjHmgb1xD+G25GxM w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,714,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="363039581"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2014 03:44:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com []) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9E3iRwX019847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 03:44:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:44:27 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "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/qkig4Xg==
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 03:44:26 +0000
Message-ID: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F48537B9A@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F48537B9Axmbalnx02ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/no2J1iT9vuvrCNuQgJxvBW3O1YY
Cc: "OSPF List \(ospf@ietf.org\)" <ospf@ietf.org>, "Ospf Chairs \(ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org\)" <ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] WG Draft QA review of draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 03:44:30 -0000


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.


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.


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).

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.

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].


Abstract: Last sentence

   s/the OSPF/the term OSPF

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".

Introduction: Last sentence

   s/the OSPF/the term OSPF

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.