Subject: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:43:26 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please check idnits. It flags some issues that should be resolved, especially
2119 language issues.

The security considerations seem inadequate. I'm no expert here, but it seems
like adding p2mp support in addition to p2p support has a good chance of
creating some new considerations. If it really doesn't, it would be helpful to
see arguments to that effect.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:17:37 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw/

Hi Ben

Thank you for the review.

The RFC2119 errors are all using "MUST not" instead of "MUST NOT" the 
intent is obvious and
will surely be picked up by the RFC Editor as a matter of course.

The reference to RFC4447 is an oversight in updating from RFC4447 to 
RFC4447bis during the
gestation of the text. Again I am sure the RFC Editor would get that one.

The only other IDnit is a writespace error in ordinary text.

Clearly if there is a respin the editors should fix these points.

As to your security concern this draft is concerned with the signalling 
needed to set up the
p2mp PWs, and uses LDP exactly as any other MPLS system uses LDP so 
there are no new
security issues that arise. There is an issue with LDP needing a 
security upgrade, but that
is really outside the scope of this draft, and indeed is outside the 
scope of this WG.
We are discussing with SecDir reviewer suitable text on this point.

Best Regards

Stewart

suitable text

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:50:59 -0500

> On Aug 29, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The RFC2119 errors are all using "MUST not" instead of "MUST NOT" the intent is obvious and
> The reference to RFC4447 is an oversight in updating from RFC4447 to RFC4447bis during the

That works for me.

> 
> As to your security concern this draft is concerned with the signalling needed to set up the
> p2mp PWs, and uses LDP exactly as any other MPLS system uses LDP so there are no new
> security issues that arise. There is an issue with LDP needing a security upgrade, but that
> is really outside the scope of this draft, and indeed is outside the scope of this WG.

I think it might be helpful to include a couple of sentences saying those exact things—but I will defer to whatever comes of the discussion with the SecDir reviewer.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Parag Jain (paragj)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:11:37 +0000

Hi Ben

I ran idnits on the draft and did not find any issues. Pls see the output below.

Thanks
Parag

idnits 2.14.01  /var/www/.idnits

tmp/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-05.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (August 21, 2017) is 9 days in the past.  Is this         ⇐ this is expected and nogt an issue.
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

     No issues found here.

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

On 2017-08-28, 10:43 PM, "Pals on behalf of Ben Campbell" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    _______________________________________________
    Pals mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:34:27 -0500

My ballot comments were for draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03, not draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-05 (which is already approved an in the hands of the RFC editor.)

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Parag Jain (paragj) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben
>

---

From: "Parag Jain (paragj)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:35:42 +0000

Hi Ben

Sorry. My bad. Misread the email.

Thanks
Parag

On 2017-08-30, 3:34 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Thanks!
    
    Ben.