Re: [Pals] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Russ,

Thanks for your review!

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> 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-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2016-05-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-19
> IESG Telechat date: Unknown
>
> Summary: Has Nits
>
> I did not review the state machines in detail.  I assume that others
> that are far more familiar with PIM have done s detailed review of
> them.
>
>
> No Major Concerns
>
>
> Minor Concerns
>
> Section 1 says:
>
>    In that case, the PW related concept/procedures are not
>    applicable and that's all.
>
> I am not sure what you are trying to tell the implementer.
> Please clarify.
>
> Section 1.3 includes: "rpt : Rendezvous Point", and Section 2.3
> includes: "Rendezvous Points (RP)".  Please pick one and use it
> throughout.
>
> In Section 2.2, please add a reference for the "split-horizon rule
> for mesh PWs" or add a pointer to the section where it is discussed
> further in this document.
>
> A better heading for Section 2.3.2 would be "IPv4 and IPv6".
>
>
> Nits
>
> Please change the language that makes reference to other "draft",
> such
> as: "As stated in the VPLS Multicast Requirements draft ...".  This
> wording leads to changes by the RFC Editor, so it is better to use a
> word like "document".
>
> Please change "J/P messages" to "Join/Prune messages" throughout the
> document.
>
> The document uses both "learned" and "learnt".  If there is a
> difference
> to the reader, it was too subtle for me to figure out.  If they are
> the
> same, please pick one.
>
> In Section 1.1, rewording would add clarity:
>
>    Depending on how the control messages are handled
>    (transparently flooded, selectively forwarded, aggregated), the
>    procedure/process may be called Snooping or proxy in different
>    contexts.
>
> I suggest:
>
>    Depending on whether the control messages are
>    transparently flooded, selectively forwarded, or aggregated, the
>    processing may be called Snooping or proxy in different contexts.
>
> Section 2.3 says:
>
>    However, the PE does not need to have any routing tables like as
>    required in PIM multicast routing.
>
> Please correct.  I think you are trying to say:
>
>    However, the PE does not need any routing tables like those
>    required in PIM multicast routing.
>
> Section 4.2.1 says:
>
>    Note that the differences apply only to PIM Join/Prune messages.
> PIM
>    Hello messages are snooped and flooded in all cases.
>
> Wouldn't it be more clear to consume the same number of lines and add
> this information to the table.
>
> In Section 2.7 the document uses PIM-BIDIR and BIDIR-PIM, and they
> seem
> have the same meaning.  Please pick one.
>
>
>