Subject: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-10: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:54:10 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-10: Discuss

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you're missing a little bit of spec needed for the
MPLS with DTLS case. (Are there implementations of the DTLS
stuff btw?) 

1) I assume the intent is that the MPLS-with-DTPS port
(TBD2) is only ever used with DTLS, in which case don't you
need a MUST or MUST NOT somewhere?

2) Is a single listener on port TBD2 supposed to handle just
one DTLS session with one LSR or many DTLS sessions with
each LSR that's on a different host/port or something else?
Don't you need to say?

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:22:50 -0500

Hi Stephen,

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp/

Good point and yes, I think so.

> each LSR that's on a different host/port or something else?

I'd say one DTLS session per LSR sender - distinguished by a different
host.   The authors will have to comment and update the draft.

Thanks,
Alia