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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf