Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures
RFC 8029
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
The document authors will increase by one (to a total of six) as due to a mix up of communications, George Swallow was omitted. We had planned to fix with the next update when addressing the Gen-Art comments last week but got delayed.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
There are comments in the gen-art review that I think need to be considered: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/NCnpeM8V5bWmrw_eLEuiT0FPP_E
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Please work with the Gen-ART reviewer on the remaining issues as well.
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> performed the opsdir review
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
A few not very important comments: 1) To me it seems a bit unfortunate that this draft points to rfc6425 and rfc6426 for the definition of the T and R flags, given the goal was to have all specifications in one doc. Not sure if that can or should be fixed. Just wanted to mention it. 2) I would expect that the security section recommends border filtering of MPLS ping message, given that these are usually used within one domain, no? 3) I know this is a bis doc but I'm still wondering why this TTL trick is used here. For ICMP that was a way that utilizes the existing specification and implementation to get further information. However here, you could just have used a flag in the header either saying 'only forward to the end' or 'reply and still forward', or something like this, to cover the two modes. This would also allow to just send one packet to the end instead of sending one for each hop. Is there a rational for copying this ICMP hack?
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection