Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 24 September 2021 18:57 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BECC3A1033; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wpmuWxnUKC8o; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DCF13A102E; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id g8so39703874edt.7; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MLGG2DiSB8aopa2NzTsVMszNxJZt2P07Il4d2VtK5as=; b=BUTKe2buX6HlG/XrktyOLK/1ox0kiUSTNq4G3yqKUdE0jcP/00ptXHe25PxQgHm2xh U/zz5fYPpjkK7aHQY76PLoDsKYqhITWQwHoM26iMRwDT89zmRQ+15pdTY5KIUUDEPLf0 O8h467YyeeNK4LHmzZeigsF85qnA/pg1dh1lx69V4mosR3ZNL9FnLX7HDUqg+RgvKupK yODIMjJ8lifhZTtoQ+SWqY84fqELsbymYX5PggR6NAmxJWQewoBaLS3x8fS3rO4txVuV 6RhVWZaqWr/RIeOGWAmEgLXiWpBTOBcFsZlHbd6D3a++5IBUzvUfoBYa6kVXwr2iJMto FnQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MLGG2DiSB8aopa2NzTsVMszNxJZt2P07Il4d2VtK5as=; b=YE7lfMRk2sEn7Yi941udVyxB9gQ9BoQkrUjklWlPxQKvcu+MJNZSajmPshM7g8BVjU 6OmQiwQz2AaZvH6GEO7RDaDJAxKDw5Vtok4Tm764CDzcvn7xu3JlXu6cJAgMNaDA8w1i B8wf4O6tVXKScWZR9ci8gyaARgNuahHTWPNfkC7CRut4cXqyyHFIPVnbUKJW/AhtSMik TcAEcwy3z6AK4Q0sMa2zqNzY86FJ7odloND1mcNRWBZfXKzDCzcKU+3lN9NIQ6NKfpCe q+eEhsnL0Nv7xFRQCNEYfrq46Go8U6MN79q7h8cifctAHgtezMv3LHhEjfqahiIZz488 9U+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533EGayIVq11/Z7dUzqyDBvA5DiPvKK3y9gRdFEBAx64IGolHYO5 ntq3jhHBwwpei5PbTu2nVbW4EkI5H2NeaKPT5B7hSN1QoXI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz4fQ8IbNM+mr1VJG5D2bKM5pqrpF1mpKtlZV5HCArR2CyDkpohNo3Btc32JNtPcdHHMCeL1Pj1NUoZEdhh93c=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:168b:: with SMTP id a11mr6958594edv.295.1632509829237; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163224103532.4850.12172127983159243773@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmVdUgF4gvyiwy-KGq=Z1wss9m1ZbpjOCExp+y9UOEdn5g@mail.gmail.com> <550B57DC-32C9-4B2F-9C42-70C786A8B726@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <550B57DC-32C9-4B2F-9C42-70C786A8B726@vigilsec.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:56:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUrk7gDqLiCnZ6dR-nsOod1EcekQP052G7GAzf0mpCazw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case.all@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, IETF SecDir <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076ce1805ccc25056"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/3inwaSgDcrr4xE1NpEbbTKSrxWw>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 18:57:17 -0000
Russ, thank you for the review, comments, and suggestions. I've uploaded the updated version -08. Regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:44 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: > Thanks. Your proposed changes resolve all of my comments. > > Russ > > On Sep 21, 2021, at 7:20 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Russ, > thank you for your thorough review, thoughtful and helpful suggestions. > Please find my notes in-lined below under the GIM>> tag. I've attached the > new working version and the diff. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:17 AM Russ Housley via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review result: Has Issues >> >> 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-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07 >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review Date: 2021-09-21 >> IETF LC End Date: 2021-09-28 >> IESG Telechat date: Unknown >> >> >> Summary: Has Issues >> >> >> Major Concerns: None >> >> >> Minor Concerns: >> >> General: All of the field names in this document use camel case, except >> one. I think the document would be easier to read if My Discriminator >> were to use the same convention. Also, HeadDiscriminator would be >> more descriptive. >> > GIM>> Thank you for pointing this out to me. I agree with the proposed > update of the field name, The remaining in the text references to My > Discriminator use the convention of RFC 5880. I hope that is acceptable. > >> >> Section 2.1 says: >> >> The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello >> messages. >> >> This MUST statement cold me much more complete: >> >> The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello >> messages, and it MUST include a 4-byte My Discriminator with a >> value other than zero. >> > GIM>> Thank you, I agree with the proposed text with a minor modification > based on re-naming of the field to HeadDiscriminator. Below is the update: > OLD TEXT: > The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello > messages. > NEW TEXT: > The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator option in its Hello > messages, and it MUST include a 4-byte HeadDiscriminator with a value > other than zero. > > >> Section 2.3: s/must set/MUST set/ >> > GIM>> Thank you. Done. > >> >> >> Nits: >> >> Section 1, para 1 could be more clear and more forceful. I suggest: >> >> Faster convergence in the control plane minimizes the periods of >> traffic blackholing, transient routing loops, and other situations >> that may negatively affect service data flow. Faster convergence >> in the control plane is beneficial to unicast and multicast routing >> protocols. >> > GIM>> Thank you for the suggested text. Accepted. > >> >> Section 1, para 2: s/DR is to act on behalf/DR acts on behalf/ >> > GIM>> Thank you. Done. > >> >> Section 1, para 3: The first sentence is very unclear. I cannot offer >> an improvement because it is too hard to parse. >> > GIM>> Would the following update make it clearer: > OLD TEXT: > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] had been > originally defined to detect a failure of point-to-point (p2p) paths > - single-hop [RFC5881], multihop [RFC5883]. > NEW TEXT: > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] had been > originally defined to detect a failure of a point-to-point (p2p) > path, single-hop [RFC5881] or multihop [RFC5883]. > > >> Section 1, para 3: s/networks precisely/networks, and it precisely/ >> > GIM>> Thank you. Accepted. > >> >> Section 1.1.1: s/familiarity/Familiarity/ >> > GIM>> Done. > <draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-08.txt><Diff_ > draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07.txt - > draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-08.txt.html>-- > last-call mailing list > last-call@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > > >
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pi… Russ Housley via Datatracker
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review … Russ Housley
- Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review … Greg Mirsky