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

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
This should be easy to resolve.  SInce this draft adds a new capability to include the return path, this provides another attack vector to observe path information that could be part of reconnaissance gathering to later attack the network or path.  While the referenced RFC4379 mentions the following in the security considerations section:

  The third is an
  unauthorized source using an LSP ping to obtain information about the
  network.

The equivalent should be added for this new capability in this draft, since now it's possible to gather the path information from the new feature.

[Ballot comment]
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.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA needs to complete.

In the TLVs subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

a single, new TLV will be registered from the range (32768-49161) as follows:

Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
TLV Name: Reply Mode Order TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Sub-TLV-Registry: No Sub-TLVs

IANA understands that this is the only action that needs to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification'
  as 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 2015-09-03. 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 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
  Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to
  be used in the MPLS echo reply.  This document updates the "Reply via
  Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse
  LSP.  This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered
  list of Reply Mode values.

  This document updates RFC7110.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/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. This is the correct type of RFC since this updates a protocol feature and thereby updates an existing standards track RFC. This intended status is clearly indicated in the title page header.

(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

  The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
  Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to
  be used in the MPLS echo reply.  This document updates the "Reply via
  Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse
  LSP.  This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered
  list of Reply Mode values.

  This document updates RFC7110.

Working Group Summary

  No controversy. The document has significant support.

Document Quality

  RFC 7110 (which this document updates) is broadly implemented
  and widely deployed. Multiple vendors have indicated the intention
  to implement this enhancement. Experts from vendors and network
  operators have carefully reviewed the document. The document has
  been updated in response to last call (and other) comments.

Personnel

  Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the
  Responsible Area Director. The previous AD for MPLS (Adrian
  Farrel) has reviewed the document and provided detailed comments.

(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 shepherd has reviewed the document, and has also
  checked that other review comments have been addressed.  I have
  also run IDnits and no issues were found.

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

  No concerns.

(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.

  no concerns.

(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.

  All authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR
  on this document. 

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

  There are no IPR disclosures on this document.

(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? 

  Solid consensus with significant support and no opposition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

  IDnits did not find any issues.

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

  not applicable.

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

  Yes, references are clearly separated into normative and informative
  references.

(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?

  All normative references are to standards track RFCs.

(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.

  No normative downrefs.

(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.

  This document updates RFC 7110. This is clearly indicated on the
  title page and in the abstract and introduction.

(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).

  The IANA considerations section looks correct to me.

(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.

  No new registries are required.

(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.

  not applicable.