Skip to main content

GMPLS Segment Recovery
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03

Yes

(Ross Callon)

No Objection

(Brian Carpenter)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-10-25) Unknown
Reference to draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling should probably be updated to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling via RFC Editor note so it doesn't hang waiting for a document that will never come.
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-10-24) Unknown
  From SecDir Review by Ran Canetti:

  There is the need to authenticate RSVP communication that is not
  hop-by-hop (hbh). (Note: This authentication is not for the purpose of
  end-to-end contents integrity, but rather to protect the RSVP protocol
  from spoofing and resource grabbing by outsiders.) RFC 3437, which
  uses non-hbh RSVP communication, contains an off-hand suggestion to
  use generic IPsec for this communication (since RFC 2747 doesn't
  apply). But the suggestion is not nearly detailed enough to be of real
  standards value.

  What about compromised RSVP routers? This concern is not mentioned in
  any RSVP-related RFC that I saw. What is the damage that can be done by
  a compromised router? How can this damage be limited/contained? What is
  the extent to which a compromised RSVP router can damage non-RSVP
  traffic? Also, what about false advertisements by RSVP routers? Can
  clients verify that they get the bandwidth allocation they paid for?
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown