[secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.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 A5DF321E80FA; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljzMwioLFnOw; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094B421E80F9; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARY27195; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:26:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:26:41 +0100
Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:26:53 +0100
Received: from DFWEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.156]) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:26:48 -0700
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SecDir Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05
Thread-Index: AQHOO+SOY0xUhx3HFkmi1wKZRz4i1A==
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:26:47 +0000
Message-ID: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A8165CD009@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CANTg3aBEVu1ZubJUMx=S3EbOWhPdw2=EF2KDR0e+6dQb3OYPMg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANTg3aBEVu1ZubJUMx=S3EbOWhPdw2=EF2KDR0e+6dQb3OYPMg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.245.146]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A8165CD009dfweml513mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:27:02 -0000

Dear all,
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.

It is technically ready, but a few editorial suggestions are below.

Typo, second-last paragraph of Section 1, last sentence:
  s/doxument/document/

Editorial suggestion: introduce the abbreviations P2P and P2MP in their respective bullets at the beginning of Section 1.1. According to the RFC Editor's list of abbreviations at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt,
these are not considered well-known, therefore need to be spelled out on first use. Note the capitalization, per the RFC Editor's list.

In case 3. of Section 1.1, delete "that" after "operator command" in the first line to make it consistent with the other two cases.

Section 1.2 first paragraph last sentence: the subject of the sentence is the singular "Requirement", hence s/are/is/ in the final line.

The authors can consider whether they need to spell out LSP and LSR at the start of Section 1.3. Again, the RFC Editor does not consider these to be "well-known" abbreviations.

Second paragraph below Figure 1: The last sentence begins: "Coordination of the switchover ..." I assume the intention here is to indicate that in this case operation is not so simple as the first sentence indicates.
That should perhaps be signalled by beginning the sentence with:
"However, coordination of the switchover ..."

Sentence before Figure 7: s/complimentary/complementary/

Spell out e2e in the second paragraph below Figure 8, since it is used once only.


Thank you,
Tina