Looks good to me, thanks. Brian
On 27/01/2015 09:36, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > On Jan 25, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > On 26/01/2015 08:49, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > Thanks for your review! Please see inline. > > On Jan 25, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2015-01-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-04 > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: Almost ready > -------- > > Minor issues: > ------------- > > 1. Hop-by-hop options, and therefore Router Alert, are well known to > cause a serious performance issue or are simply ignored by many > routers (as warned in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7045#section-2.2). > A pointer to that warning would be appropriate. > > > I do not believe this concern is very applicable to the MPLS OAM RAO. The > whole point of RAO in an MPLS LSP is to be intercept the packet and punt it > to a slow path, and it is not injected back. The MPLS OAM Router Alert option > is invisible to the MPLS Label-switched hops, and when the LSP finishes, it > is only processed once. > > I am also not sure I understand the suggested action behind this comment. Are > you suggesting we add a pointer to that Section, or that exact paragraph to > the Security Considerations? > > Well, maybe what you could do is add a statement that this type of RAO > is not subject to the problem of being ignored, because the appropriate > router will process it (on the slow path) by design. The generic problem > is that HbH options might be ignored even if the designer assumes otherwise, > which is why we added the warning in RFC 7045, and you're saying that > problem doesn't apply here. > > Sounds good — I added the following paragraph (and Informational reference). > All, can you please review? > > IPv6 packets containing the MPLS OAM Router Alert Option are > encapsulated with an MPLS Header and not expected to be inspected by > every label switched hop within an MPLS LSP. Consequently, this > value of the Router Alert Option will be processed by the appropriate > router and is not subject to the problem of being ignored as > described in Section 2.2 of [RFC7045]. > > > > 2. I'm a bit surprised to realise that new definitions of Router Alert > options are not routinely notified to the 6MAN WG. > > We had run this through 6MAN, both on list and presenting twice in IETF > meetings. > > I must have been asleep, sorry! > > > No worries, thanks for the review! > > — Carlos. > > Brian > > Thanks! > > Carlos. > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
