Skip to main content

MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback Functions
RFC 6435

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)

Recuse

(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-17)
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

No Objection (2011-10-17)
- 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

Recuse ()