GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03

In author's 48 hours:
From: RFC Editor
Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 4003
          NOW AVAILABLE
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:01:02 -0800
To: lberger@movaz.com
Cc: RFC Editor , Alex Zinin
    , Bill Fenner ,
    kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk

[Ballot comment]
With reference to the others' remarks:
to be consistent with how other specifications are treated by this esteemed body,
I hope that there will be an RFC Editor note for expanding the acronym and
information to the editor to be kinder to Readers

[Ballot comment]
Probably, the boilerplate 2119 terminology import statement belongs in its own terminology section, not as the 2nd paragraph of section 2, "Egress Control Procedures".

[Ballot discuss]
The second paragraph of the Security Considerations discusses remote
  control mechanisms by which Internet host configuration can be changed
  without the involvement or knowledge of the operator or user.  The
  paragraph says:
  :
  : If such a scheme is implemented, this should be fully disclosed to
  : the customer, operator, and user so that an informed decision can be
  : made, perhaps in accordance with local security or privacy policy.
  : Furthermore, the significant possibility of malicious parties
  : exploiting such a remote control mechanism may completely negate
  : any potential benefit of the remote control scheme.
  :
  This does not go far enough.  While this is not the primary focus of
  this document, I think that we should not only require disclosure of
  such a feature, we should also require the ability to turn it off.

AD-review comments

Ed: please use the new ID boilerplates.

> Abstract
>
>    This note clarifies the procedures for the control of the label used
>    on a output/downstream interface of the egress node of a Label
>    Switched Path (LSP).  Such control is also known as "Egress Control".
>    Support for Egress Control is implicit in Generalized Multi-Protocol
>    Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling.  This note does not modify GMPLS
>    signaling mechanisms and procedures and should be viewed as an
>    informative clarification of GMPLS Signaling - Resource ReserVation
>    Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions.

Given that the doc goes STD track, I suggest that the last sentence is
changed to say "This note is a clarification update to the specification
of GMPLS Signaling..."

> Author's Note
>
>    This draft is targeted for publication as a BCP.

This one should be removed for the same reason.