Re: [Pals] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 18/05/2015 10:12, Loa Andersson wrote:

Thank you for the review.
>
> Summary:
>
> - This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
>   should be considered prior to publication.
>   Note: I also have a question about a security statement in the draft
>   that I don't know if it has been addressed.
>
>
> Comments:
> - Overview of the draft quality and readability.
>   The document is technically sound.
>   The document is sometimes a bit hard to read, but I guess that
>   will be sorted out by the RFC Editor.
>
>
> - Anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding
>   your review.
>   I normally do my reviews by Word with change bars and comments,
>   I've included that file for details.

Please see attached word file with comments on your comments
>
> Major Issues:
> - I put the question on the security statement at the end of the
>   second paragraph in the Introduction here. I'm not sure it is a
>   major issue, but I want to lift to make sure that it is properly
>   discussed.
>
>   If I understand correctly "..., and is a security risk" refers to the
>   fact that OAM packets might be sent over the attachment circuit(s) if
>   the TTL is not set right.
>
>   OAM packets on the attachment circuit as the specific problems this
>   could involve is not listed as a security risk in 6073. The security
>   section of 6073 talks about the possibilities that pay load packets
>   are forwarded on to the attachment circuit, but does not say anything
>   about OAM packets.

The threat is called up in


        13.1.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6073#section-13.1.1>.
        VCCV Security Considerations


of RFC 6073 which talks about VCCV i.e. OAM packets, however
this text provides a new solution to the problem.

I would like to hear from the ADs on whether this alternate
mitigation to the TTL error warrants an update to RFC 6073
being noted.


>
>
> Minor Issues:
> - I think I could say "No minor issues found" and say that everything
>   else is nit, but since some of the thing captured in the word file
>   are for clarity, e.g. the last paragraph in section 4 (fate sharing)
>   and the first paragraph in section 5 (what MUST be inspected), so I
>   guess that there are things that sits on the fence between minor and
>   nits. However, I think that they are very easy to resolve, in that
>   respect they can be treated as nits.
> - A second minor issue is that I find the Abstract less informative than
>   I would want, it should be beefed up and clarified a bit.
Please see t he word file on the above.
>
> Nits:
> - The rest of the comments in the word file are nits, e.g.:
>
>   -- Naming of the new channel (I think these to names refer to the
>      same thing
>      MPLS VCCV Control Channel (CC)
>      GAL VCCV Control Channel Type
>
>   -- expanding abbreviations the first time they are used
>
>   -- expanding all abbreviations that is not on the RFC Editors
>      list of well-known
All dealt with

- Stewart
>
> /Loa
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html