Subject: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:14:38 +0100

I have performed an AD review of your draft.

Don't panic!

I review all drafts that I am responsible for before putting them
forward for IETF last call. The main objective is to catch nits and
minor issues that would show up during the last call or in IESG 
review. The intention is to help polish your document and make sure
it is clean and shiny so that other reviewers will stick to the 
technical details.

Thanks you for a really important document! It is well-written and

I am particularly grateful for the effort you put into the Security
section.

On reviewing it, there are a couple of small points I think it would
be helpful to sort out to ensure complete understanding from all your
readers. I'd like to see a quick respin of the document before I issue
the IETF last call. As soon as I see a new revision posted (the gate 
for submissions re-opens on Monday 8th November), I'll set the ball
in motion.

Of course, all of my issues are up for discussion.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

===

Am I being too picky?
The Abstract says...

   IP option packets that belong to a prefix-based FEC but fail to be
   MPLS encapsulated simply due to their header options present a
   security risk against the MPLS infrastructure.

Failure to be encapsulated could cover being dropped on the floor, or
generating ICMP. I think you mean "forwarded into an IP/MPLS network
without being MPLS-encapsulated"

Ditto Section 3.

---

Section 2 says that you are updating RFC 3031. Is this the case? If so,
this should be reflected in the document header.

---

Please use "and" instead of "&"

---

Section 3

   Such deployments often
   minimize the IP routing information (e.g., no BGP transit routes)
   carried by LSRs since not necessary for MPLS forwarding of transit
   packets.

"...since it is not..."

---

Acronyms

Generally a sterling job!
Can you expand LER on first usage in the body text (yes, I know it is
in the Abstract, but you have to do it again in the main text).

---

Section 4

   The policy also prevents specific option types such as
   Router Alert (option value 148), for example, from forcing MPLS
   imposition of the MPLS Router Alert Label (label value 1) at ingress
   LERs.

Delete "for example". You already have "such as"

---

Section 7

A harmless section, but unusual in this type of document and can be 
safely removed.

---