Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00 wglc

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:45:09 -0700

On 20.05.2011 10:59, Mike McBride (mmcbride) wrote:
> Today begins a two week wglc for draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00. Please
> review the draft. Then indicate to us if its worthy, or not, of being
> sent to the iesg.

This wglc ends tomorrow and we only had one person responding
so far. Could some of you please be so kind and say whether you
think it's ready (also speak up if ready). Or let us know if
anything should be changed.

You guys have been really good at responding to wglc lately...

Stig

>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00.txt
>
> thanks,
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Bill Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:39:53 -0400

Stig,

I agree that this draft is ready for the IESG, with the exception of two
minor grammatical issues, and one ambiguity that I believe is worth
correcting before it goes forward.

Bill

Section 2.1, para 1, line 6. "systems makes" -> "systems make"

Section 2.2, para 1, line 7.  "like" -> "such as"  ("like" is for
comparisons, "such as" introduces a list.")  (Yes, I know, most North
Americans don't know the difference, but I do...) :-)

Section 4, para 1, line 4.  What does "it" refer to?  If it refers to
"Hello messages", it should be "they".  If it refers to "Interface
Identifier", then replace "or it" with "which".

-- 

Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email: [email-masked]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http: //users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:47:12 -0400

Stig,

I think it is ready for the IESG.

Regards,
Jeff  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 09:45
To: Mike McBride (mmcbride)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00 wglc

Stig

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:30:51 -0700

Hi Bill

> Americans don't know the difference, but I do...) :-)

You're right. And I'm aware of it, although I'm so used to abusing
"like".

> Identifier", then replace "or it" with "which".

Since it says "it" and not "they" I thought it was clear it was the
identifier... Using "which" is not what I want. I'm trying to say that
someone might try to do an attack where they send hello messages that
either may contain some arbitrary interface ID value, or they may omit
the value, when a hello with a value is expected. Although it doesn't
read so well I've now replaced that "it" with "the Interface Identifier".

The sentence is now

In particular, PIM Hello messages may be forged, and may include an
arbitrary Interface Identifier, or the Interface Identifier may be
intentionally omitted.

Maybe this sentence should be a bit different? Should "intentionally"
be replaced? Maybe "intentionally" can be omitted?

Thanks for your review Bill, appreciated.

Stig

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:44:03 -0400

I think your new phrasing is good, even if it seems redundant to your ear.

---

From: Bill Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:55:09 -0400

Stig,

I agree, my change did not express what you wanted to express.

However, your new version does, and the "intentionally" is also
important, since it emphasizes the "bad behavior" aspect.

So, I agree with Tom, your phrasing is good.

  Bill

--

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:17:04 -0700

On 5/23/2011 8:54 AM, Bharat Joshi wrote:
> Hi Stig,
>
>       I have few suggestions below, almost all minors on this draft.
>
> Mike,
>      I think this is ready for the next level.
>
> Thanks,
> Bharat
>
> • Should we use "interface id" or "interface identifier" in Abstract?

Identifier seems better, fixed.

> • In following sentence in Introduction:
>
> The identifiers can optionally be generated so that they are unique within, e.g., an administrative  domain.
>
> will 'such that' instead of 'so that' be better?

Yes, think so. Changed that a couple of places.

> • Should we move the second part of introduction to another section called 'Use cases'?

I think I'll leave it as it is. The introduction is fairly short anyway.

> • In following statement:
>
>     It is assumed that different protocols may have different minimum requirements for stability and uniqueness, but that they have no  maximum requirement.
>
> Can we use 'Interface identifier' as follows:
>
>     It is assumed that different protocols may have different minimum requirements for stability and uniqueness of the interface identifier, but that they have no  maximum requirement.

Better, thanks.

> • Following statement:
>
> If an interface goes down and up, the router SHOULD use the same Identifier.
>
> to
>
> If an interface goes down and comes up, the router SHOULD use the same Identifier.

Yes

> • In Message format, can we move explanation of 'Router Identifier' before 'Local Interface Identifier' to keep it consistent with format?

Yes

> • Should not PIM-Port be normative reference for this work?

I'm keeping it as an informative reference. It helps understand why
this option is needed, but it is not needed for implementing this
option.

Thanks, I'll submit a new version based on this right away.

Stig

> ________________________________________
> From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike McBride (mmcbride) [[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00 wglc
>
> **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely
> for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please
> notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not
> to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and
> any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken
> every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage
> you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your
> own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the
> right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the
> Infosys e-mail system.
> ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***

---

From: Gorry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:17:36 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00.txt

draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt appears to have addressed the 
technical issues I raised earlier.

I have two editorial comments:

* Section 2
- Minor comment that this sentence appears hard to parse.
- Current
"   The Interface Identifier option is used to identify which interface
    of a neighboring router a PIM Hello [RFC4601] is sent on."
- Suggested
"   The Interface Identifier option is used to identify the interface
    used to send a PIM Hello [RFC4601] to a neighboring router."

* The abstract is very short. It does not include the words "Protocol 
Independent Multicast", which I would have expected.

Sorry for the very late reply,

Best wishes,

Gorry

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:32:04 -0700

> used to send a PIM Hello [RFC4601] to a neighboring router."

Maybe, not sure. One minor thing perhaps is that a Hello is not usually
sent to a specific neighboring router, and there may be multiple.

"Identify the" seems more correct than "identify which". So one
possibility is also to just do:

The Interface Identifier option is used to identify the interface
of a neighboring router that a PIM Hello [RFC4601] is sent on."

I also added the word "that". It seems better to me.

> Independent Multicast", which I would have expected.

PIM is now on the list of terms that don't need to be expanded.

I won't update the draft right now, but there is likely to be
another edit based on AD input or IETF last call, and this can
then be addressed.

Thanks,

Stig

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:11:49 +0100 (BST)

> of a neighboring router that a PIM Hello [RFC4601] is sent on."
To me this still reads bad, but perhaps it is only word order?

Would this work:

The Interface Identifier option is used to identify the interface
on which a neighboring router sends a PIM Hello [RFC4601] message."

> another edit based on AD input or IETF last call, and this can
OK - There's nothing here that would obstruct publication.

Best wishes,

Gorry

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:14:04 -0700

> on which a neighboring router sends a PIM Hello [RFC4601] message."

That sounds good to me, thanks!

Stig