Skip to main content

Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
RFC 7759

Yes

(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -14)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-11-16 for -15)
I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits:

Comment:
=========
- 4.1, paragraph 3:
Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements?  (And if so, is there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?)

Nits:
====
-1, paragraph 1:
Missing "the" before "MPLS Transport Profile "

- 1.0, last paragraph, last two sentences:
Who are “we” in these sentences? Does it make sense to talk about what “we” are or are not “configuring”?

2.1.1, first bullet in first list:
consider s/"both sides should be"/"both sides are"

-4.1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence:
Missing words? (What is IANA requested to do with the TLV? I assume register it. Also, what is the name of the new TLV?
Consider a cross-reference to table to for "this sub-registry"

-4.2: "Assignments of bit positions 0 through 31"
If I read correctly, that's all the bits. Is this the same as saying the registry itself requires standards-action?

-5:
It's mildly odd to find the acknowledgements section between two substantive sections.

-6, first paragraph:
Should "liveliness" be "liveness"?

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-11-18 for -15)
Mehmet Ersue performed the opsdir review.

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-11-18 for -15)
- 2.1.1, is there any chance of moving on from the "Keyed SHA1"
from RFC5880 to e.g. HMAC-SHA256 for this? We're generally trying 
to get that kind of transition done as we can and moving to use of
a standard integrity check rather than a more home-grown one
has some benefits. The HMAC-SHA1-like thing you're doing is
still probably ok, (though could maybe do with crypto eyeballs
on it as there may have been relevant new results since 2010)
but future-proofing would suggest moving to HMAC-SHA256 if we
can. (I can imagine such a change might require a new document,
but am asking anyway:-)

- 2.1.1, I'd recommend saying any password auth-type MUST NOT
be used - would that be possible?

- section 6 - what "established secure key-exchange protocol"
is available to use here?

- (this is sort of off-topic) I find an architecture like this
where a packet traversing a network has quite so many
side-effects a bit hard to grok. Do you have a pointer to
something (not too long:-) that explains the consequences of
that?

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -15)