Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-05
Yes
(Deborah Brungard)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-09-28 for -04)
Unknown
1) Bottom of page 7: Please describe the meaning of the length field in the TLV and whether there is any padding. Alternately (or as well) - give a reference that defines these details.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-09-30 for -04)
Unknown
I support the publication, but I would like to see the update to RFC7110 clearly indicated — specially because the change modifies a “MUST” behavior. Section 3.1. (Reply via Specified Path Update) says that the "usage of the "Reply via Specified Path (5)" without inclusion of a "Reply Path TLV" is no longer invalid” — but "Reply via Specified Path (5)” (that specific string of text) doesn’t show up in RFC7110, nor does the word invalid. In digging a little bit, I can see that Section 5.1. (Sending an Echo Request) of RFC7110 says: “When sending an echo request…the Reply Mode of the echo request MUST be set to "Reply via Specified Path", and a Reply Path TLV MUST be carried…” In the end, I’m assuming that the update to RFC7110 is to change that text in 5.1 to something like “…the TLV SHOULD be carried; if it isn’t then it indicates the reverse LSP…”. Please be clear.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-09-29 for -04)
Unknown
The security considerations say "no further considerations required" without further explanation. While I don't doubt that is true (except for those mentioned in Kathleen's DISCUSS), it would be helpful to mention the new protocol elements and procedures added, and why the wg believes they don't add any considerations beyond those in the referenced drafts.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-10-15)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my prior discuss.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-09-30 for -04)
Unknown
typo? "the reverse the reverse LSP"
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown