Robert: 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 [mailto:trill-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:25 PM To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes.all@xxxxxxxx; trill@xxxxxxxx Subject: [trill] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08 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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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 is. 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 F=1 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 nickname? Nits Terminology: The definition of Transit RBridge says it's also named as a Transit Rbridge? _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
