Skip to main content

Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations for Per-Interface Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-09

Yes

(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)

Recuse

(Adrian Farrel)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-11) Unknown
Surely, you could have worked "mop" in there as well.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-06) Unknown
I did have one (non-blocking) question on section 4.  Requirements and Design Considerations for Internal-MIP Adressing

   Any solution that attempts to send OAM messages to the outgoing
   interface of an MPLS-TP node must not cause any problems when such
   implementations are present (such as leaking OAM packets with a TTL
   of 0).

"... must not cause any problems (such as ..." with one example - is there somel reference that might provide a bit more guidance? 

I'm looking at the bulleted list under Figure 6 as a very reasonable description of constraints on a solution - would some bullet in that list prohibit "leaking OAM packets with a TTL of 0"?
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-12) Unknown
What are the security mechanisms that are "required" to be
offered and that we are "strongly adivsed" to use? Don't
you need to say - if those are in RFCs 6371 or 6941 then
saying which sections you mean should be easy. If those
are not in those RFCs then how am I supposed to know what
to do?
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse () Unknown