Subject: [Pals] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:09:57 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-04: 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-lsp-ping/

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

* I think the P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV in Section 4.1 is a bit under-specified.
It is unclear how the address family of the originating router's IP address is
communicated. Is this purely derived from the IP Addr Len (i.e. Len is 4 =>
IPv4, Len is 16 => IPv6)? If so, I think it would be useful to state this
explicitly and add some validity checking and error handling for values other
than 4 and 16. [Authors clarified that this is intentionally conveyed this way
as they do not expect to support any other address families]

* Are there no alignment requirements for the IP address in "Originating
Routers IP Addr" inside the sub-TLV? I would think that alignment on a 4 byte
boundary might be needed.