Mirja,
Thank you very much for reviewing.
Please see in-line with [JORGE].
Thx
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 12:16 PM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framew...@ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framew...@ietf.org>, Stephane Litkowski
<stephane.litkow...@orange.com>, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" <bess-cha...@ietf.org>,
"stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>,
"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: (with COMMENT)
Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org>
Resent-To: <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, <satya...@cisco.com>,
<saja...@cisco.com>, <jdr...@juniper.net>, <kiran.naga...@nokia.com>,
<senthil.sathap...@nokia.com>
Resent-Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 12:16 PM
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First one minor editorial comment:
Sec 3.2 "Otherwise if even a single advertisement for the type-4 route is
not received with the locally configured DF Alg and capability,
the Default DF Election algorithm (modulus) algorithm MUST be
used as in [RFC7432]."
I believe you meant a single advertisement is received without the
configured
DF Alg and capability (or a different one I guess), and not that the
advertisement is not received at all (because that might be hard to check),
right? Maybe you can rephrase this sentence a bit to make the intention more
clear!
[JORGE] we changed it to the following:
" - Otherwise if even a single advertisement for the type-4 route is received
without the locally configured DF Alg and capability, the Default DF
Election..."
However, think about this further, I wondering if there is something here
that
such be discussed in the security considerations, e.g. how easy would it be
for
an attacker to disturb the algo selection and cause a fallback to the
default
scheme...?
[JORGE] yep, good point. We added this in the security section, also based on
the comments from another reviewer:
"Note that the network will not benefit of the new procedures if the DF
Election Alg is not consistently configured on all the PEs in the ES (if there
is no unanimity among all the PEs, the DF Election Alg falls back to the
Default [RFC7432] DF Election)."
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
