Rich, thanks for comments
1. I will explain in glossary quickly that L1 and L2 pertains to ISIS concepts 2. Paragraph moved before figure 3. Paragraph 1 and 2 talk about different tunnel types hence I kept it separate. I pointed out the tunnel type. * Tony From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 3 October 2022 at 18:23 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Reviewer: Rich Salz Review result: Has Nits I am a routing naïf and do not have a lot of time these days. I hope this review is still useful, anyway. The glossary was very helpful. I still don't have a clear understanding of L1 and L2. The picture is a tour de force. The description "Figure 1 is an example..." paragraph should be moved before the picture, not directly after it. Sections 6 and 7 indicate, to me, that this document is comprehensive and informed by real-world concerns. Sec 9, Security Considerations. This is where I did the most careful reading. "If an attacker should be able..." s/should be able/can/ s/could be in most extreme case/could be in THE most extreme case/ It was a bit surprising to me to see the same sentence at the end of both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. Maybe remove them and move them to the start of paragraph 3. I think the risks are well-described, and the importance to preventing is made. Is it possible to mitigate the damage if a risk occurs? "No" is a reasonable answer. Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
