Re: [sfc] IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit

["Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

I support progressing this draft to an Experimental RFC. Please consider the following comments (mostly editorial):

1)
Not sure what is implied by the sentence below (Sec 1): 
> A particular set of nodes "to be verified" is either described by a set of shares of a single secret.  

2)
The following sentence (Sec 1) describes about controller nodes and verifier nodes. While the former's role could be easily understood, I am not sure the latter node role is clearly defined. If it does not limit the scope, we may use only one terminology or clarify the difference, if we need to refer about two roles.
> The complete secret set is only known to  the controller and a verifier node, which is typically the ultimate node on a path that performs verification.

3)
Sec 7.9.1
OLD 
 Since these schemes introduce at least additional control requirements, the selection of order verification SHOULD be configurable the Controller management interface
NEW
Since these schemes introduce at least additional control requirements, the selection of order verification SHOULD be configurable BY the Controller management interface

4)
Sec 3.2 has the words Solution Approach duplicated

5)
Not sure if there is a missing reference here (Sec: 3.3.1.3): 
> For a general way to compute the modular multiplicative inverse, see   e.g., the Euclidean algorithm.

6)
General comment: It may be helpful to either have a diagram or a pointer to a diagram pointing out the different roles like Controller, ingress node. Also I am not sure if there is text (other than the section in Security Considerations) that explains that POT should be deployed in a set of nodes under a single administrative domain.

Thanks
Prasad

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sfc <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> > Sent: Dienstag, 16. Juni 2020 15:42
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [sfc] IETF WG state changed for 
> > draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit
> >
> > The chairs are starting the WG last call for 
> > draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit.  Please reply explicitly whether 
> > you think this is ready to go to the IETF for publication as a Experimental RFC.
> > As noted below, the call runs through June 30.
> >
> > Note that silence does not imply consent, so please speak up.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel (& Jim)
> >
> > On 6/16/2020 9:32 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
> > >
> > > The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit has been 
> > > changed to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern:
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit/
> > >
> > > Comment:
> > > This starts WG last call for this document, ending June 30.
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sfc mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc