Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
RFC 4023
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) Yes
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I gave my assent to the author on wording to clear my Discuss on this 6 weeks ago. It would have been helpful to be given back my email when asked to re-check the i-d, rather than having me find it.
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comments from Bert: - I do not understand why RFC791 is normative while RFC2460 is Informative Comments/Nits from OPS directorate (by Pekka). We know that some are REAL NITs. just to record them in case a new rev is done anyway. Network Working Group Tom Worster Internet Draft Expiration Date: March 2004 Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. Eric C. Rosen, editor Cisco Systems, Inc. ==> s/Tom/T./, s/Yakov/Y./, s/Eric C./E./ 7. IANA Considerations The MPLS-in-IP encapsulation requires that IANA allocate two IP Protocol Numbers, as described in section 3. No future IANA actions will be required. The MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation does not require any IANA action. ==> the last sentence should be removed, as it conflicts with the rest of the section. [RFC2460]"Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification," S. ==> s/]"/] "/ 9. Intellectual Property Notice 10. Copyright Notice ==> I'd recommend moving these after Authors Information section (14.) 14. Author Information ==> s/Author Information/Authors' Addresses/
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
I share Thomas' concerns, but did not choose to enter a separate discuss.
(Ned Freed; former steering group member) No Objection
Copyright section has (date) rather than actual date
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Abstain
As a general comment, I agree with all of Thomas's operational concerns, and I think there are probably more waiting in the weeds. This seems to create a very generalized pair of mechanisms that can probably actually only be used successfully in very tightly pre-configured situations. Melinda Shore has several times raised a flag that we're turning our end-to-end network into an all tunnel network. When we start tunnelling tunnelling protocols and protecting their security with tunnels, we're in trouble.