Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet-01
review-ietf-sfc-oam-packet-01-artart-lc-leiba-2022-11-08-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2022-11-20 | |
| Requested | 2022-11-06 | |
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-11-08 | |
| Completed reviews |
Artart Last Call review of -01
by Barry Leiba
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Russ Housley (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Barry Leiba |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/VjXaCASJ1XlSAzj-5N1zU2pCxIU | |
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2022-11-08 |
review-ietf-sfc-oam-packet-01-artart-lc-leiba-2022-11-08-00
Simple and straightforward; thanks. I have only a very minor question:
— Section 3 —
As such, SFFs, SFC-aware SFs, and SFC
Proxies SHOULD discard any NSH packets with the O bit set and Next
Protocol set to something that is not itself an OAM protocol.
What happens if they don’t discard them (what interoperability failure or other
harm)? Is there any reason to advise further? Or does this not need a BCP 14
“SHOULD”?