Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
RFC 7737

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Comment (2015-09-28 for -04)
No email
send info
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) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-29 for -04)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-09-30 for -04)
No email
send info
typo? "the reverse the reverse LSP"

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-10-15)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my prior discuss.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2015-09-30 for -04)
No email
send info
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.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection