Rich, thanks for comments
- I will explain in glossary quickly that L1 and L2 pertains to ISIS concepts
- Paragraph moved before figure
- Paragraph 1 and 2 talk about different tunnel types hence I kept it separate. I pointed out the tunnel type.
From:
Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 3 October 2022 at 18:23
To: secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, lsr@xxxxxxxx <lsr@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Reviewer: Rich Salz
Review result: Has Nits
I am a routing naïf and do not have a lot of time these days. I hope this
review is still useful, anyway.
The glossary was very helpful. I still don't have a clear understanding of L1
and L2.
The picture is a tour de force. The description "Figure 1 is an example..."
paragraph should be moved before the picture, not directly after it.
Sections 6 and 7 indicate, to me, that this document is comprehensive and
informed by real-world concerns.
Sec 9, Security Considerations.
This is where I did the most careful reading.
"If an attacker should be able..." s/should be able/can/
s/could be in most extreme case/could be in THE most extreme case/
It was a bit surprising to me to see the same sentence at the end of both
paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. Maybe remove them and move them to the start of
paragraph 3.
I think the risks are well-described, and the importance to preventing is made.
Is it possible to mitigate the damage if a risk occurs? "No" is a reasonable
answer.
Juniper Business Use Only
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
