Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-06

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Tue, 10 October 2017 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 1AA71135278; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aP2WkK1jlvYh; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B31C135182; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D13136066B; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.61]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AFDA040064; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM7E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b91c:ea2c:ac8a:7462%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:19:41 +0200
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-06
Thread-Index: AQHTPV1VzX8aY9/LTUuBhYq0tjqJGaLdO3xA
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:19:40 +0000
Message-ID: <16282_1507648781_59DCE50D_16282_164_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921EA860EE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <150715491656.6673.6134344241640965386@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150715491656.6673.6134344241640965386@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/tnRc2LPp6FqfDeyqd2cJExEtdXA>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for your review.
The v07 I just posted addresses your comments.

Brgds,


-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 00:09
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-06

Reviewer: Melinda Shore
Review result: Has Nits

This document describes a mechanism to mitigate against failures stemming from the formation of "microloops" during a re-routing convergence, as described in RFC 5715.  Modulo some mechanical problems with language usage (i.e.
grammatical errors) and some missing definitions, the document clearly describes the problem it is addressing and the proposed solution.

The security considerations section is very clear about why the authors believe no new attacks are introduced by this mechanism, and it is credible

Sections 4 and 5 represent the core of the document and are very clear - a very nice piece of specification.

It would be helpful to have a terminology section, or to expand some of the acronyms in-line (LFA, for example).

For some reason the grammatical errors are clustered towards the front of the document but there are many scattered throughout:

Section 1, first paragraph singular/plural mismatch: "Based on network analysis, local failure make up a significant portion of the micro-forwarding loops"

Section 1, second paragraph unidiomatic use of "the topology"

Section 2, first paragraph unidiomatic use of "high damages"

Section 2.1, first paragraph needs an article on "IGP shortcut"

Same paragraph, doesn't need an article on "the router C"

Same paragraph, "nexthop" should be two words

Item 1 in 2.1, needs an article before "preprogrammed FRR path", also run-on sentence needs to be split or a conjunction inserted

Item 3 in 2.1, "no more" should be "no longer", and "encapsulate anymore"
should be "does not continue to encapsulate"

Section 2.1, last paragraph: "The protection enabled by fast-reroute is working perfectly, but ensures a protection, by definition, only until the PLR has converged." is somewhat unclear

Section 3, third paragraph: first comma is unnecessary.  Also, "local only"
should be "local-only"

Section 8.2, first paragraph: "associating timing" should be "associated timing".

Also in section 8.2, the message chart header is separated from the actual contents by a page break, and that should be remedied

Section 8.3, first paragraph: "that happens" should be "that happen".  Also, "without further delaying route insertion" would be more idiomatic than "without delaying route insertion anymore"

Section 9.1, throughout: "nexthop" should be "next hop"

Section 9.1, first bullet item: "only have one" should be "only has one" (or "has only one")

Section 10: "a good behavior" should be "good behavior"


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.