Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-16
Yes
(Deborah Brungard)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -14)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-16 for -15)
Unknown
I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits: Comment: ========= - 4.1, paragraph 3: Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements? (And if so, is there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?) Nits: ==== -1, paragraph 1: Missing "the" before "MPLS Transport Profile " - 1.0, last paragraph, last two sentences: Who are “we” in these sentences? Does it make sense to talk about what “we” are or are not “configuring”? 2.1.1, first bullet in first list: consider s/"both sides should be"/"both sides are" -4.1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: Missing words? (What is IANA requested to do with the TLV? I assume register it. Also, what is the name of the new TLV? Consider a cross-reference to table to for "this sub-registry" -4.2: "Assignments of bit positions 0 through 31" If I read correctly, that's all the bits. Is this the same as saying the registry itself requires standards-action? -5: It's mildly odd to find the acknowledgements section between two substantive sections. -6, first paragraph: Should "liveliness" be "liveness"?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-18 for -15)
Unknown
Mehmet Ersue performed the opsdir review.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-11-18 for -15)
Unknown
- 2.1.1, is there any chance of moving on from the "Keyed SHA1" from RFC5880 to e.g. HMAC-SHA256 for this? We're generally trying to get that kind of transition done as we can and moving to use of a standard integrity check rather than a more home-grown one has some benefits. The HMAC-SHA1-like thing you're doing is still probably ok, (though could maybe do with crypto eyeballs on it as there may have been relevant new results since 2010) but future-proofing would suggest moving to HMAC-SHA256 if we can. (I can imagine such a change might require a new document, but am asking anyway:-) - 2.1.1, I'd recommend saying any password auth-type MUST NOT be used - would that be possible? - section 6 - what "established secure key-exchange protocol" is available to use here? - (this is sort of off-topic) I find an architecture like this where a packet traversing a network has quite so many side-effects a bit hard to grok. Do you have a pointer to something (not too long:-) that explains the consequences of that?
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Unknown