Re: [sfc] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

please see inline.

-m

Le 2021-12-01 à 20:29, John Scudder via Datatracker a écrit :
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: Discuss
> 
> 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. I notice that in his RTGDIR review of version 08 [*], Stig Venaas suggested
> some improvements to the security considerations section. This was subsequently
> discussed and Yuehua Wei proposed some new text [**] for version 09. That text
> isn’t present, and I don’t see any further resolution on the mailing list
> either. I’d appreciate it if the topic were closed by either adding the
> proposed text, or some other text to resolve Stig’s concern, or explanation of
> why no change was made.
> 
> [*]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-08-rtgdir-lc-venaas-2021-09-29/
> [**] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/Q2Snf_ZLTkJ1augbaWpmNYlwFBU/

I think the authors had the intent of including the proposed text but 
indeed apparently failed to do so before it went in IESG Review and I 
missed catching this at that time, so thank you.
I'll ping Stig to see if this matches his expectations.

> 
> 2. In §8.2, the two first references, [GROUPBASEDPOLICY] and [GROUPPOLICY] are
> deficient. At a minimum, a reference should provide enough information to allow
> a reader to straightforwardly determine how to retrieve it. This is true even
> if it’s not an openly-available online source. These two references have less
> than the bare bones, I don’t know how to find them or refer to them.

I didn't feel strongly about these as they are Informational.
Yet, I've found:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy
and https://wiki.opendaylight.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=336503 
for ODL (although it's qualified as an archived project).
Maybe the authors have better references.

> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. I support all of Ben’s discuss points. I also want to reiterate his comment
> about the desirability of having useful captions on the figures.
> 
> 2. In §4.2, you write,
> 
>                            This context header carries both the format
>     and value of the Tenant identifier.
> 
> However, I don’t see anywhere that the header “carries… the format”. Indeed,
> you write that the Tenant ID is an opaque value. As far as I can tell, there’s
> no way to infer anything about its structure without a priori knowledge.
> 
> If that is correct, you can simplify the sentence to “This context header
> carries the Tenant Identifier.” If it’s not correct, please explain?
> 
> 3. Nit, in §4.7 the words “quite efficiently” don’t seem to serve any useful
> purpose; the document would be better off without them IMO.
> 
> 
> 
>