Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
review-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02-genart-lc-levin-2017-04-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-04-07
Requested 2017-03-17
Authors Les Ginsberg, Stefano Previdi, Wim Henderickx
Draft last updated 2017-04-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Orit Levin (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Orit Levin
State Completed
Review review-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02-genart-lc-levin-2017-04-13
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-04-13

Review
review-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02-genart-lc-levin-2017-04-13

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
Reviewer: Orit Levin
Review Date: 2017-04-06
IETF LC End Date: 2017-04-07
IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13

Summary: This draft is "ready with issues" for publication.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

1. Add text explaining the reason (or reasons) for replacing the original RFC 6822 from 2012. 
Reason: It is a "bis" draft and there is no mention about it in the text.
2. In Abstract, state clearly that this standard introduces the support for instances vs. other already existing concepts also listed in the Abstract (i.e., circuits, adjacencies,  topologies, etc.).
Reason: The wording is not clear about what is the new feature vs. what are the new benefits vs. what was the original baseline
3. Throughout the document, use "standard instance" instead of "IID = 0" or "IID #0".
Reason: Expressions "standard instance", "IID = 0" and "IID #0" are used interchangeably throughout the document. It seems that they all refer to the same thing - the implementation of the original protocol without the concept of instances. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
4. In section 2 par 3, change "support" and "operates" to "MUST support" to use requirements language.
5. In section 2 par 2, change "may" to either "can" or "MAY" to clarify the intent.
6. In section 2.1 par 3, clarify whether IID #0 is ever being used on the wire. Explain the concept of the "standard interface" (see previous comment).
Reason: It seems to me that IID #0 MUST never be used on the wire. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
7. In section 2.1, rephrase "marks ... by including" to "MUST include" to use requirements language.
8. In section 2.4.1 par 2 second sentence, the sentence starting with "However" needs to be rewritten using standards language to explain its intent. 
9. In section 2.5, replace "exists" with "MUST be performed".
10. In section 2.5.1, replace "only operates" with "MUST only be performed".
11. In section 2.5.2, replace "This requires" with "It is REQUIRED".
12. In section 2.5.2 third sentence, after "inconsistent" insert "due to their configuration". Please, correct me if I am wrong.
13. In section 7 Security Considerations, discuss possible additional security considerations (or the lack of them) related to the introduction of "instances".
Reason: Beyond the normal IETF procedure, this is especially important because "multiple instances allow isolation of resources..." Can this isolation, if observed or interfered, be damaging beyond the previous "standard interface" situation.

Nits/editorial comments:
1. Compare (Diff) the current draft with the published RFC 6822. You will find that many of the editorial corrections got lost in the bis version. Omitted corrections throughout the document include "instance-specific", " topology (or topologies)", "Type-Length-Value" and others.
2. In Introduction par 4, either change the two "may" to capitals or replace with "can" to clarify the intent.
3. In Introduction par 5, add references to where in the document the two methods are described. Also, consider changing "defined" to "described".
4. In Introduction par 7, move the last paragraph before listing the examples and adjust the text accordingly, for clarity.
5. In section 2.3, replace "normal" with "usual".
6. In section 2.6.1 first sentence, replace "not to cause" to "to avoid".