Subject: [karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-00.txt

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:04:52 -0400

Hi Sam,

Here are my comments:

  1. Section 1: Change "interfeer" to "interfere".
  2. Section 1.1: Change "thatt" to "that".
  3. Section 1.1: Under "Neighbor Identification" - In OSPFv3, OSPFv3 routers are
     always identified by router ID which is always protected.
  4. Section 2.1: Change "beleived" to "believed".
  5. Section 2.1: Change "streight" to "straight".
  6. Section 2.1: "clock ticks since reboot, where each clock tick is on the order                                                                                    
     of millisecionds" would be more accurate.
  7. Section 2.2: Suggest "This index, along with other IPsec facilities, provide"
     rather than current text.
  8. Section 2.2: Since this section is meant to describe the current state, the
     paragraph on replay should not discuss what could be done with multiple SPIs.
     If we are describing solutions, we could just as well describe keeping track of
     sequence numbers for different OSPF packet classes in section 2.1.
  9. Section 3: The database exchange sequence number is never flooded. Perhaps,
     "flooded" should be change to "included in OSPF Database Description packets".
 10. Section 3: Remove "or when all adjacencies are lost". It would be very naive
     for an implementation to do this.
 11. Section 4: I would change the last requirement to "information needed to                                                                                         
     prioritize OSPF packets (the OSPF packet type) MUST be available to the                                                                                          
     mechanisms providing relay protection." This is more important than it
     being in a constant location.

Also, should the document reference [I-D.ietf-rpsec-ospf-vuln]?
It is highly unlikely that this document will ever be completed. 

Thanks,
Acee