LGTM — Thanks!
When Ketan tells is we’re ready to move forward I’ll do a deeper read of the document. Alvaro. On September 9, 2024 at 10:44:22 AM, Greg Mirsky (gregimir...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Alvaro, thank you for your thoughtful and helpful suggestions. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>. I've included the diff to highlight the updates applied in the new working version (somehow, idnits missed another outdated reference). Regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:05 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > On August 28, 2024 at 7:31:23 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Greg: > > Hi! > > > ... > > > 516 12. Security Considerations > > > > > > 518 Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], > [RFC7726], > > > 519 and [RFC8029] apply to this document. > > > > > > < minor > I think some more text would be required here to cover SR > > > specific aspects? Right now, it is only BFD specific. > > > > GIM>> Added the reference to RFC 9256. Would you suggest additional > > references? > > I would like to see text explaining why no other considerations, > specific to what is being specified in this document, are needed. > > For example, something along the lines of: "This document describes A, > B, and C. These new mechanisms only add XXX, so there's no risk of > additional security issues..." [Just making this up!] > GIM>> I've used it, and now the section reads as follows: NEW TEXT: This document describes the specifics of using MPLS LSP Ping, BFD, and BFD for multipoint networks for the Segment Routing network with the MPLS data plane. Since all the discussed tools have been used in MPLS networks, there are no additional security risks. Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC8562], [RFC8563], [RFC7726], [RFC8029], and [RFC9256] apply to this document. > > Also, the Intended Status of this document is "Experimental". Please > include a section about what you expect the experiment to be -- what > you expect implementations to experiment with -- what do you expect to > learn -- how will you know if the experiment is successful? > GIM>> I propose the following new section: 11. The Scope of the Experiment The experimental part included in this document is limited to the use of Non-FEC Path TLV in BFD Reverse Path TLV [RFC9612]. The goal of the experiment with the Non-FEC Path TLV is validation that its use does not adversely affect the defect detection in the forward direction while reducing the number of used BFD sessions between a pair of LSRs without reporting additional false-negative events. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
