[trill] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach-04: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach-04: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


- abstract: "Thus, remote edge RBridges are required to keep
multiple locations of one MAC address in one Data Label." I
find that very hard to read and don't understand what it's
telling me. Even if these terms are terms-of-art for trill, it'd
be worth being less opaque in the abstract. I have the same
problem with the intro. I think if you tried to be specific
about whose MAC address you mean (a host attached to RBridges
in the AAE) and also explained (or avoided) the term "Data
Label" here that'd help.

- 5.1: for how long is a remote RBridge "required to adhere"?
(Sorry if that's clear in 4.1, in which case I missed it.)

- 5.3.2: "well-known split horizon technique" just screams for
a reference. Please add one, which is presumably easy to do as
this is well-known:-)

- security considerations: I'm surprised there's nothing new
here. Did someone do the analysis to check? (Sorry for doubting
you but security considerations sections like this that only
consist of references are often an indicator that nobody did
take a real look;-) One possible example (not sure if it
works): if I can fake an ESADI message then I could pretend to
be the RBridge in the AAE that has least cost and so lots of
traffic would be sent to me, instead of the real RBridges in
the AAE.  Compared to the situation without this specification,
that might mean a more effective attack. Now I'm not really
sure if that's true or not (I'm sure you'll tell me) but my
question is whether or not those kinds of thing were considered
already.