Subject: AD-review for draft-ietf-isis-*-interoperable

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:48:12 -0800

Jeff,

I have one real comment on the two drafts plus some nits.

Security:

> 14. Security Implications

Nit: above should be "Security Considerations" in both drafts

>    The clarifications in this document do not raise any new security
>    concerns, as there is no change in the underlying protocol described
>    in ISO 10589 [1] and RFC 1195 [2].

Section 6.2 of the IP document essentially deprecates TLV 133 and
tells to use TLV 10 for authentication. This should be mentioned in
this section.

It would also be a good idea to go through every section in both
documents and see if what's described there changes the security
aspects of the protocol, i.e., creates new or removes old attack
possibilities.

I would also remove words saying that the underlying protocol is not
changed.

Nits:

> 2. Abstract

for both docs, the abstract should not have any refs in it. Just
remove "[?]" from it.

> 15. References

You need to specify whether references are normative or informative.
My guess for the IP doc would be that refs 1--5 are normative and [6]
is informative. What you should do is have two sections:

15. Normative References

16. Informative References

Some more comments have been provided during the rtg-dir review
and are available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=9699&rfc_flag=0
(Jeff has gotten them directly from Mike)

-- 
Alex