Requirements for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Shared Mesh Protection
RFC 7412
Yes
No Objection
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) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks very much for addressing my discuss from the SecDir review and comments in the updated version.
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
I'm not sure I agree that there are no new security considerations here. Say if the path ABCDE has some security property (e.g. encrypted) then won't that also be a requirement that APQRE will also need to be able to meet? And doesn't that then impose some requirements on solutions? So wouldn't it be a good plan to add a requirement that solutions MUST be able to ensure/manage commensurate security for protection paths? (This is not a discuss because I'd be fine to raise such a discuss ballot for a solution document, and also because it overlaps with Kathleen's discuss with which I agree.)