Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
RFC 8277
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
(Deborah Brungard)
No Objection
Warren Kumari
(Ben Campbell)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-08-17 for -03)
Unknown
Thank you for working to address my DISCUSS. In Section 2.3: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label |Rsrv |S~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Label |Rsrv |S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prefix ~ ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: NLRI With Multiple Labels - Length: The Length field consists of a single octet. It specifies the length in bits of the remainder of the NLRI field. I would like to double check that my math is correct. With SAFI=128 and AFI=2, assuming the prefix length of 192 bits, this will leave space for: (255-192)/24 = 2.625. So this configuration only allows for 2 labels to be included, right?
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-08-02 for -02)
Unknown
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt S 2.1 I note that you use 255 to mean "any number of labels" and 0 is marked ignore. Is there a reason not to use 255 as a concrete number and 0 to mean "any number"? This is just for my information. S 2.3. Note that failure to set the S bit in the last label will make it impossible to parse the NLRI correctly. See Section 3 paragraph j of [RFC7606] for a discussion of error handling when the NLRI cannot be parsed. It would be helpful if you explicitly said that you parse this value by reading labels one at a time until you get a non-zero S bit. It's implicity, but having it be clear would be nice.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-08-02 for -02)
Unknown
The security considerations section should at least mention that none of the tunnel methods provide encryption or authentication of those mentioned earlier in the document (Section 4: LSP, IP, GRE, & UDP). Although this isn't listed as a discuss, I'd appreciate the comment being addressed with an update to the text (1-2 sentences at most). Thank you.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown