Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-05

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2015-09-30 for -04)
No email
send info
I support the publication, but I would like to see the update to RFC7110 clearly indicated — specially because the change modifies a “MUST” behavior.

Section 3.1. (Reply via Specified Path Update) says that the "usage of the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion of a "Reply Path TLV" is no longer invalid” — but "Reply via Specified Path (5)” (that specific string of text) doesn’t show up in RFC7110, nor does the word invalid.  In digging a little bit, I can see that Section 5.1. (Sending an Echo Request) of RFC7110 says: “When sending an echo request…the Reply Mode of the echo request MUST be set to "Reply via Specified Path", and a Reply Path TLV MUST be carried…”   In the end, I’m assuming that the update to RFC7110 is to change that text in 5.1 to something like “…the TLV SHOULD be carried; if it isn’t then it indicates the reverse LSP…”.  Please be clear.

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2015-09-28 for -04)
No email
send info
1) Bottom of page 7:  Please describe the meaning of the length field in the TLV and whether there is any
padding.  Alternately (or as well) - give a reference that defines these details.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-09-29 for -04)
No email
send info
The security considerations say "no further considerations required" without further explanation. While I don't doubt that is true (except for those mentioned in Kathleen's DISCUSS), it would be helpful to mention the new protocol elements and procedures added, and why the wg believes they don't add any considerations beyond those in the referenced drafts.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2015-10-15)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my prior discuss.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-09-30 for -04)
No email
send info
typo? "the reverse the reverse LSP"

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info