Subject: [L2tpext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:04:41 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel-07: 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-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel/

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

Two questions:

1) I assume this was in depth discussed in the wg but the given reasoning
for the following MUST does still not justify a MUST for me:
"All packets MUST carry the 64-bit L2TPv3 cookie field."
I would assume that there are possible deployment scenarios e.g. within a
single domain where other existing protection mechanisms might be
sufficient already that you don't really need the cookie...?

2) Further this is not normative language and i wonder if it should be:
"However, for compatibility with existing RFC3931 implementations, the
packets need to be sent with Session ID."
Again I assume that this could be a SHOULD because if you know that you
don't have devices that (only) implement RFC3931, you could probably even
neglect the session id...?