LDP 'Typed Wildcard' Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03

[Ballot comment]
I'm not sure if there are really no new security
considerations here, but the difference may be relatively
minor, (given how I understand these protocols are used, i.e.
without any cryptographic authentication;-). 

Anyway, my questions:

Which of the RFCs referred to in section 5 calls out that
sending a spoofed wildcard message will have a bigger
impact for lower cost for an attacker? 

Could it also be the case that an attacker able to inject one
of these needs less information about the network to cause
the same amount of damage compared to an attacker who could
not send a wildcard message?

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard





The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to

Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:

- 'LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements'

  as a Proposed Standard



The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits

final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally, comments may be

sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the

beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.



Abstract





  The "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element"

  defines an extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) that

  can be used when it is desired to request or withdraw or release all

  label bindings for a given FEC Element type.  However, a typed

  wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each FEC

  element type.  This specification defines the typed wildcard FEC

  elements for the PWid (0x80) and Generalized PWid (0x81) FEC element

  types.











The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec/ballot/





No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

An extension (RFC5918) to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
(RFC5036) defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is
desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC
Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given
type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be
individually defined for each type of FEC element.

RFC4447 defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC
Element", but does not specify the Typed Wildcard format for these
elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed Wildcard
FEC Element for the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC
Element". The procedures for Typed Wildcard processing for PWid and
Generalized PWid FEC Elements are same as described in RFC5918 for
any typed wildcard FEC Element type.

Working Group Summary

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

There was solid consensus in the working group regarding this draft,
no controversy or anything rough.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

At least one implementation is in progress, but has not yet been deployed.
There may be additional vendors with plans to implement.

The draft received a good WG last call, which resulted in comments
and a new revision. No particular expert review was necessary.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?

Andrew Malis and Stewart Bryant respectively.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document has been reviewed by the shepherd for quality and completeness,
and has also completed working group last call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The authors have confirmed that they not aware of any IPR on the draft.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The draft has solid WG consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are no nits according to the checker (I ran it myself).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

N/A

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions required.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A