MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback Functions
RFC 6435
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
s1.1: Is it update or replace s7.1.1? I guess it really doesn't matter, but if the intent is really to completely replace then maybe it'd be clearer to just say that. Also, s6.2 of this draft discusses unlocking and s7.1.2 discussed unlocking so shouldn't s1.1 of this draft also point out that 7.1.2 is also updated/replaced? s2.2: RFC 6371 uses LKI for Lock Instruction instead of LI. Are there other MPLS RFCs/I-Ds that use LKI instead of LI? Just trying to make sure they're all lined up nicely. s2.2: add: NMS Network Management System s4.1: r/This possible for/This is possible for ? s5.2: Any reason to not start at 0? Seems like you're burning a number. s7: Well I'm not so sure it's a security issue, but is there a concern about sending real traffic during a loopback? In other words should you always send some dummy traffic?
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- It seems that the LI message allows setting a timer so that repeat LI messages only need to be sent every 255 seconds, and one of those every ~15 minutes (255*3.5) would keep a locked section locked. Would it be worth nothing this potential DoS in the security considerations, since that's quite a good return for the putative attacker in terms of bits sent by the attacker vs. bits not sent due to the DoS? - NMS is used but not expanded/defined - s/despatch/dispatch/? - s/must e/must be/ - s/either end/both ends/ would be better in 6.2, 1st para
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Recuse