Abhay, Spencer:
Abhay Roy wrote:
Thanks for the review. Please see inline for comments..
On 11/5/2008 8:34 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-05.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2008-11-05
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-10
Summary: This document is on the right track for publication as
Proposed Standard. I have a couple of 2119 questions.
Comments:
The 16-bit LLS Data Length field contains the length (in 32-bit
words) of the LLS block including the header and payload.
Implementations MUST NOT use the Length field in the IP packet header
to determine the length of the LLS data block.
Spencer: I'm not sure this is a 2119 MUST NOT - aren't you just
saying that if you try it, you'll fail?
We discussed about it, and decided to remove the 2nd sentence above.
The CA-TLV MUST only appear once in the the LLS block. Also, when
present, this TLV SHOULD be the last TLV in the LLS block.
Spencer: Why SHOULD and not MUST? At a minimum, I would expect to see
some description of what should happen if CA-TLV is NOT the last TLV
in the LLS block - and if the expectation is that processing
continues, I'm not sure what this sentence means...
The thinking was we could have found the TLV at a "fixed" location to
speed up authenticating the LLS block. But after discussing more on
it, we decided to get rid of this requirement.
I think we should change it to MUST per Spencer's suggestion. I.e.,
make the CA-TLV the last
in the LLS block. This makes it much easier to authenticate the LLS
block without including the CA-TLV.
Thanks,
Liem
I will make the changes in the next revision..
Regards,
-Abhay
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
