Skip to main content

Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols
RFC 6827

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; 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 ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; 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 ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-10-24)
- 6.1 says the router IDs SHOULD NOT be zero but I don't
get when it'd be ok for zero to be used (just asking as
its always good to say when going against a SHOULD NOT
is fine).

- I wondered if the combination of exporting routing
information up, down and sideways, and dealing with
not-quite overlapping ASON and OSPF hierarchical
concepts might increase the probability of error here to
the point where this draft ought say something about
that. I don't know the answer, just asking.

- Is the definition of looping in 7.2 appropriate? Why
are only ASON-specific loops considered? Why not
consider anything that causes a routing loop,
regardless?

- 7.2.1, 2nd last para, should that "must" be a "MUST"
in "The RA ID value must be a unique identifier for the
RA within the ASON routing domain."

- I was surprised not to see the string "ASON" in any of
the TLV names defined here.

- Section 9, 2nd para: How can message authentication
improve security against passive attacks? Seems plain
wrong. Adding crypto for integrity/authenticaiton is
purely to prevent/detect active attacks. My suggestion
is to do s/secure against passive attacks and// 

- Section 9, 3rd para: Signatures do not by themselves
provide stronger security than MACs. That all depends on
key management and specific algorithms. I'd argue to
just delete that paragraph.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-10-25)
This is a well written document.

Since the security of this mechanism is fundamentally associated with the security of OSPF, an informational reference to draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis would seem useful to the reader.

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()