Skip to main content

Maximum Transmission Unit Signalling Extensions for the Label Distribution Protocol
RFC 3988

Yes

(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)

No Objection

(Bert Wijnen)
(David Kessens)
(Harald Alvestrand)
(Steven Bellovin)

No Record


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-04-02)
While I'm not sure that this cold be subject of a discuss, the level of jargon (unexpanded acronyms in particular) in this document makes it hard to understand.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-03-30)
  There are a lot of acronyms in the first two paragraphs of the
  Introduction that are not expanded.

  Please add a pointer to section 5 of [2] in the Security
  Considerations.

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-03-30)
The draft says it updates RFC 3036, which implies it should also be a Standards Track document and not Experimental as currently identified.  Either that or the document should be changed to not update 3036.

(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-03-29)
Reviewed as a candidate for Experimental, since that was the category on the agenda;
note that the document lists a category of Standards Track, and an RFC Editor
note to clear that up is required.

(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-04-02)
  carry MTU information for a FEC between adjacent LSRs in LDP Label

expand/define FEC?

Ditto for other terms on first use? E.g., TLV?

> 2.4. MTU TLV

surprised that there isn't a line here saying length is always 2 (or
whatever it is, since its presumably fixed.)

>    Changes in MTU for sections of an LSP may cause intermediate LSRs to
>    generate unsolicited label Mapping messages to advertise the new MTU.
>    LSRs which do not support MTU signalling MUST accept these messages,
>    but MAY ignore them (see Section 2.1).
>

don't understand the reference to 2.1. Also wording is odd, saying an
implementation that doesn't support this spec "MAY" ignore
messages. Don't they kind of do that be definition? Certainly not an
implementation decision in the MAY sense.

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Record

No Record (2004-04-02)
The TCP spoofing attack and the remedy are way too tersely mentioned -
it's impossible to understand how they fit in.