Fwd: Re: Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 04 January 2012 11:32 UTC

Message-ID: <4F0438BC.8010801@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:32:12 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
References: <4F043397.2090706@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F043397.2090706@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
Date: 	Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:10:15 +0000
From: 	Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Reply-To: 	stbryant@cisco.com
To: 	Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>, 
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability.all@tools.ietf.org, 
rtgwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org
CC: 	iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org

On 04/01/2012 08:41, Shawn Emery wrote:
>  I have 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 editors and WG chairs should treat these
>  comments just like any other last call comments.
>
>  This informational draft describes optimizations for Loop-Free
>  Alternates (LFA)
>  in Service Provider (SP) networks.
>
>  The security considerations section does exist and states that there is
>  no new security considerations, which I believe to be the case.
>
>  General comments:
>
>  Not being a routing expert this was slow to read (e.g. not knowing
>  some of the
>  unexpanded abbreviations and terminology).  As a result, the editorial
>  comments are just
>  from the Abstract and Introduction sections.
>
>  Editorial comments:
>
>  s/applicability of LoopFree Alternates/applicability of LoopFree
>  Alternates (LFA)/
>  s/Service Provider networks/Service Provider (SP) networks/
>  I haven't looked the common abbreviations list, but should ISIS, et.
>  al. be expanded?
>
>  Shawn.
>  -- 
>
>
Shawn

Thank you for your review, and for picking up an inconsistency that we
had all
missed. "ISIS" is well known, but technically it should be IS-IS.

There is some security text that is in previous work on this subject
that it is useful to reference that I have added in via an editor's note.

For everyone's benefit I append the editors notes for the document.

Though out the document please:
s/ISIS/IS-IS/
s/LoopFree/loop-free/

Then

s/Service Provider networks/Service Provider (SP) networks/

In section 1

Old
In this document, we analyze the applicability of LoopFree Alternates
in both core and access parts of Service Provider networks.
New
In this document, we analyze the applicability of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA)
[RFC5714][RFC5286] in both core and access parts of Service Provider (SP)
networks.
End

=====
In References add normative ref to RFC 5286

=====

In Section 8

Old
This document does not introduce any new security considerations.
New
The security considerations applicable to LFAs are described in
RFC5286. This document does not introduce any new security
considerations.
End

=====

- Stewart

Fwd: Re: Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicabi… Stewart Bryant