I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 05 Oct 2010
IESG Telechat date: 07 Oct 2010
Summary:
The draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but I have
some concerns that I think should be addressed first.
Major issues:
-- This draft creates an "expansion" code point in an IANA registry, where the
expansion registration requirements are weaker than those of the parent
registry. This always makes me nervous, as it opens the window for end-runs
around the registration requirements of the parent.
In this particular instance, the parent registry policy is "expert review"
while the proposed expansion registry policy is "specification required". This
draft puts normative requirements on the content of the required
specifications, and makes additional non-normative statements about the
intended use of the GENINFO code point. This implies to me that the review
process needs to do more than determine that sufficient specification exists.
Rather, it needs to determine that the criteria in this draft are met by that
specification. Therefore, I think that it would be appropriate for the GENINFO
registry to use the "expert review" policy.
Minor issues:
-- section 4.2, 2nd paragraph: "Where this is not possible, the two affected
LSPs SHOULD be flooded as an atomic action"
Any reason that this is not a MUST, since it seems like the safety-net behavior
for when the aforementioned SHOULD is not possible to follow?
-- Section 4.3: "When information in the two GENINFO TLVs conflicts i.e there
are different settings for a given attribute, the procedure used to choose
which copy shall be used is undefined."
Should their be normative requirement not to create this undefined condition in
the first place?
-- Security Considerations:
This seems too lightweight. Is it impossible for GENINFO applications to
include sensitive information? Are there no security guidelines that should
apply to GENINFO application specifications?
Even if the answer is that the underlying IS-IS protocol provides sufficient
security for any reasonable use of the GENINFO code point, it would be worth
saying that explicitly.
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section 2
Please expand IS-IS and PDU on first mention.
-- section 6, last paragraph:
Expected/desired by whom?
-- Outdated reference for draft-ietf-isis-mi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf