Hi, Sparks
Thanks for your review and comments.
A new version(version 10) draft is submitted to fix the issues.
Regards
Fangwei.
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10.txt
has been successfully submitted by Fangwei Hu and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes
Revision: 10
Title: TRILL Smart Endnodes
Document date: 2018-03-01
Group: trill
Pages: 15
URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10
Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10
Abstract:
This draft addresses the problem of the size and freshness of the
endnode learning table in edge RBridges, by allowing endnodes to
volunteer for endnode learning and encapsulation/decapsulation. Such
an endnode is known as a "Smart Endnode". Only the attached edge
RBridge can distinguish a "Smart Endnode" from a "normal endnode".
The smart endnode uses the nickname of the attached edge RBridge, so
this solution does not consume extra nicknames. The solution also
enables Fine Grained Label aware endnodes.
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
