[mpls] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-07
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Discuss

### S4

* It does not seem great to me to have ::1 leaking out in packets that can
  traverse a non-logical-loopback link (i.e. actually be sent on the wire).

  Raising this DISCUSS to see if it might be better to recommend use of
  any number of addresses from the 100::/64 Discard-Only Address Block
  (RFC 6666) which should have similar properties but also allow operators
  to maybe construct configurations where leaked packets might be captured?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-07
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S4.

* "entropy other than the IP destination address SHOULD be used"

  Do you want to explicitly mention the IPv6 Flow Label here (RFC 6438)?