[manet] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether -credit-extension-06

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Issues

I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-06. 
The Operational Area Review Team (OPS-DIR) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the OPS-AREA in terms of operational issues.  
Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
 
Document: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-06 
Reviewer: Susan Hares
Result: Ready with issues 
Review Date: 2024-08-12 

Summary: This document refers to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15.txt 
and RFC8175.  My technical issue with this specification is 
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15, and the lack of comments on 
wildcards in the security section.  This document also has editorial nits. 

Benefit of this draft: Credit window schemes can enable effective data flow 
processing for 802.1Q. 

Issue 1: Issue with draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15: 
draft-ietf-manet-credit-window as a specification of the credit-window scenario. 
draft-ietf-manet-credit-window is a document declared "DEAD" by the IESG
with flaws noted in the TSV-ART and OPS-DIR review. 

In my gen-art review for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15, I've noted issues in that document.  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-15-genart-lc-hares-2024-08-12/

Since that document is a key reference in this document, those issues impact this document. 

Issue 2: "wildcard" matching of any PCP or VID needs security/manageability comment

Wildcards ease the manageability of matching PCP or VID fields.  However, the 
security section should make some comment about the risks of wildcard matching for these fields. 

Comments on Editorial NITs:  
1. Unclear use of ".e.g.," format in 3 places 

Place 1: Section 4, paragraph 7. 

Old text:/
   Routers may have limits on the number of queues that they can support
   and, perhaps, even limits in supported credit window combinations,
   e.g., if per destination queues can even be supported at all. /

Translating the "e.g.," to "For example, if per destination queues can even be supported at all"
gives an unclear sentence.  Best to rewrite this sentence. 

Place 2:  Section 4, paragraph 7, last sentence  

Old text:/
   In either case, the mismatch of
   capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
   management mechanisms, e.g., user interface or error logging./

The "e.g.," format is used correctly in the singular form ("a--" or "b--"). 
However, the "e.g.," format does not create a clear sentence. 

Two alternative: 

New text-1:/
   In either case, the mismatch of
   capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
   management mechanisms (e.g. user interface or error logging)./

New text-2:/
   In either case, the mismatch of
   capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
   management mechanisms suchg as user interface or error logging./

Place 3: Section 4: Security considerations, paragraph 1, sentence 2

Old text:/The defined extension
   exposes vulnerabilities similar to existing DLEP messages, e.g., an
   injected message resizes a credit window to a value that results in a
   denial of service./ 

The "e.g.," format does not provide a clear indication that this vulnerability is one 
of several potential vulnerabilities.  


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]