Subject: [Lsvr] [WGLC completed of the L3DL drafts] Next steps of the l3dl drafts

From: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:24:54 +0000

Hi All,

The WGLC for "draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01", "draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-07" and "draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-ulpc-01" is completed. The few comments that were received on the WG list indicate that the work is of quality and on the correct track. However there was not an overwhelming amount of feedback received as part of the WGLC process.

We'll discuss the progress of the l3dl drafts during our ietf110 session, and see how to align lsvr charter with the l3dl technology to make sure that we can keep progressing the l3dl work accordingly.

Brgds,
Gunter Van de Velde

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:01:00 -0800

sue hares has pointed out a potential issue if l3dl is used amidst an
interconnected mesh of non-l3dl switches.  while i , possibly
incorrectly, believe this is not the application space for which l3dl
and spf are intended, i thought i would raise it.

the multicast HELLO could be replicated and stormed by a non-l3dl mesh.
i.e. in §10, if the multicast destination MAC is the To Be Assigned
flavor, which transits and may be branched out by a non-l3dl switch,
it could be replicated and cause a small storm.

if we think this is an issue, a 32- or 64-bit nonce could be added to
the HELLO PDU that could be recognized in cache of a receiver and then
not propagated.  of course, this could only apply to l3dl-speaking
receivers.

personally, i am not too excited by this issue.  but others might be;
so i thought it worth propagating :)

randy