Re: [trill] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 27 February 2018 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F5012E8CB; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:01:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EGSLZZ7wmNyY; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:01:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E866812E8C8; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:01:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Robert Sparks'" <>, <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 18:00:58 -0500
Message-ID: <008c01d3b01e$d55d8620$80189260$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE5Ku0ELzOLO9TA7gXOCj8SO4KyCaTt5Tng
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:01:09 -0000


Thank you for the review and a big thanks for catching the "F" Bit issue  in
section 4.3.   I apologize for letting that slip through my shepherd filter.
I suspect I've been reading this draft so often, that I'm starting to miss
the obvious. 

Your point is valid about expanding the security considerations.   I'll
check in with Fangwei, Donald, and other co-authors to spin a revision to
address your points. 

I'm glad you read through this draft as GEN-ART reviewer. 

Cheerily, Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: trill [] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:25 PM
Subject: [trill] Genart telechat review of

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-02-27
IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-06
IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08

Summary: Ready with issues

Major issues

1) In section 4.3 the bullet describing the F bit does not parse. There are
two instances of "Otherwise" that do not work together.

2) All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really
Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called
out in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe
it would be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with

3) I think the security considerations section should call out again what an
RB should do if it gets message that looks like it's from a SE, containing
the right nickname, but the RB hasn't done the right Smart-Hello handshaking
with that SE already. What would keep a lazy implementation (or one driven
by product managers picking and choosing features) from just forwarding a
message from a malicious element that just happened to know the RB's


Terminology: The definition of Transit RBridge says it's also named as a
Transit Rbridge?

trill mailing list