Subject: [trill] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 04:19:26 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-11: 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-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- 2.6: I wondered why this was useful. Is it for cases where
the secondary push service is differently connected or is it
in case the primary goes down? Might be good to say.

- section 6: what security mechanism differences are there
between the push and pull cases? Why aren't those called out
here?  Forcing the reader to delve into the various other
security mechanism RFCs and figure this out themselves seems
less good.

- section 6: apologies if I asked this before (in which case I
forget the answer;-) but how fictional/real is the crypto
stuff with TRILL in terms of the likelihood of it being
actually used? I ask again, as if the crypto stuff is mostly
fictional, then I think you ought note that here, given the
attack surface that the directory function creates.