Re: [savi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-savi-mix-14: (with COMMENT)

["Jun Bi" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ben,

Many thanks for your editorial comments!




Best Regards,

Jun Bi
 
From: Ben Campbell
Date: 2016-11-30 07:19
To: The IESG
CC: savi-chairs; draft-ietf-savi-mix; savi; jeanmichel.combes
Subject: [savi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-savi-mix-14: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-savi-mix-14: No Objection
 
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
 
 
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
 
 
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-savi-mix/
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I have a few minor (non-binding) comments, and some editorial comments:
 
Substantive:
 
-3, 7th paragraph: "... SAVI binding table should be shared..."
This seems like it might deserve a SHOULD, given that it seems like one
of the main points of the document.
 
-4: Can you define (or cite a definition) for "binding anchor"?
 
- 6.1.1: Is the "manual" method excluded from consideration here? If so,
it would be helpful to explain that, and why.
 
- 6.1.2: It's not clear to me what the  title "Overwritten preferences"
means. Should this be "Exceptions"?
 
- 6.1.2.2, paragraph 6, "message should be discarded":
That seems important, should the should be SHOULD?
 
-- (same paragraph), "It is suggested to limit
   the rate of defense NAs to reduce security threats to the switch."
 
Can you elaborate on that threat, or cite something that does?
 
- 6.2: I'm a bit surprised this section doesn't prioritize the binding
with the longest expiration time. Or do you assume the manual method and
FCFS method do not have expirations?
 
-8: Can you elaborate on the correlation concern?
 
 
Editorial:
 
- General: There are a number of abbreviations that should be expanded on
the first use.
 
-1, paragraph 1: s/Validaiton/Validation
 
- 3: Is there a reason the 4th method (manual) doesn't get a place on the
list? If so, it would be helpful to add text to explain why.
 
- 5: The DHCP/SLAAC and SeND/non-SeND headings seem ambiguous, in that it
is not clear to me that the "/" means "these two things in combination",
as opposed to "either of these methods". I suggest writing out what you
mean rather than using the "/" as a shortcut. (Also, are these the only
combinations that people need to think about?)
 
-6: I assume "assignment separation" is the method described in section
5, but that section never uses those exact words. Please consider using a
consistent term.
 
-6.1.1, first paragraph "decide to whom"
Does this mean to decide which binding anchor to use? (Otherwise, who is
"whom"?)
 
-- The use of a numbered list in 6.1.1 seems to imply some ordering or
preference, but I don't think that is the intent. If so,  please 
consider using an non-numbered list.
 
- 6.1.2.2 could use some proofreading--there are a number of grammar
errors and unclear statements.
--  "value of a know binding anchor":
s/know/known
-- last paragraph: What is the antecedent of "It" in "It should not
install..."
-- s/"... prevent the node to assign..."/"... prevent the node from
assigning..."
-- I don't understand the intent of the second to last sentence well
enough to suggest wording.
 
- 6.1.3: Please spell out FCFS
 
 
_______________________________________________
savi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi