Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations for Per-Interface Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)
RFC 7054

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-06)
No email
send info
I did have one (non-blocking) question on section 4.  Requirements and Design Considerations for Internal-MIP Adressing

   Any solution that attempts to send OAM messages to the outgoing
   interface of an MPLS-TP node must not cause any problems when such
   implementations are present (such as leaking OAM packets with a TTL
   of 0).

"... must not cause any problems (such as ..." with one example - is there somel reference that might provide a bit more guidance? 

I'm looking at the bulleted list under Figure 6 as a very reasonable description of constraints on a solution - would some bullet in that list prohibit "leaking OAM packets with a TTL of 0"?

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-12)
No email
send info
What are the security mechanisms that are "required" to be
offered and that we are "strongly adivsed" to use? Don't
you need to say - if those are in RFCs 6371 or 6941 then
saying which sections you mean should be easy. If those
are not in those RFCs then how am I supposed to know what
to do?

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-11)
No email
send info
Surely, you could have worked "mop" in there as well.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) Recuse