Re: [mpls] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Ron!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 16, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kathleen,
> 
> Thanks for the thoughtful review. Response inline.
> 
>                                    Ron
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I see that the Security Considerations section says,
>>  "operators SHOULD
>>   filter LSP Self-ping packets at network ingress points"
>> 
>> I think it would be helpful to have the draft explicitly state the scope for this
>> new function - within a single operator's network is my assumption.  If that
>> assumption is not correct, I may come back with more questions.
> [RPB] 
> 
> Good catch. The statement that you quote, above, reflects the mental model that I had in my head when I wrote it. That is:
> 
> - MPLS-SIGNALING-DOMAIN == OPERATORS-NETWORK-DOMAIN
> 
> While this is generally true, it may not be 100% of the time. We can fix the problem by editing the text as follows:
> 
> OLD>
> operators SHOULD  filter LSP Self-ping packets at network ingress points"
> <OLD
> NEW>
> operators SHOLD filter LSP Self-ping packets at the edges of the MPLS signaling domain.
> <NEW
> 
>> There was also a suggestion made int he SecDir review that you may want to
>> consider:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=secdir
> [RPB] 
> Good idea. I will add a sentence to the text.
> 
>                                          Ron
>