Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to make draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping an MPLS working group document

In addition to the previously noted issues, from discussion, it looks like the values "assigned"
in the IANA considerations section are at least questionable at this point.

At present, there is only one obvious clash in these assignments (the draft "assigns" the value
"5" in the "Downstream [Mapping Address Type] Registry" and this value has already been 
assigned via RFC 6426).  However, the MPLS WG now has in place an early assignment process 
and it may be the case that other assignments have been made via this process and a clash will 
occur when these are permanently assigned later.

As a NIT - compounding the issues in this case - two of the affected Registries are incorrectly
named in the IANA section.

These values should be replaced with "variables" (e.g. - TBA-1, TBA-2, TBA-3, etc.) before the
draft is adopted as a WG draft.  Once adopted, the authors of this draft may then apply for 
early assignments via the existing process.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Gray 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:02 PM
To: 'Loa Andersson'; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to make draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping an MPLS working group document

Don't support at the current time.

The draft does not appear to deal reasonably with the case where a desired remote "Proxy LSP Ping" LSR does not support this capability.  I searched and the phrase "backward compatibility" is not in the full-text version of the draft.

I also have some questions about the utility of this capability, given that this might - for instance - be used by an edge router to task other routers with "pinging" toward another edge router.  Presumably, this could include routers which are typically not optimized to handle processing of traffic such as Ping responses.

This could be made very much worse if - within the context of the service provider network - a large number of edge LSRs were compromised and became agents in a DDoS attack on the service provider core network.
--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:35 PM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to make draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping an MPLS working group document

Working Group,

This is to start a two week poll on adopting
draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-02 as an MPLS working group document.

Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working group mailing list (mpls at ietf.org). Please give a technical motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that the document should not be adopted as a working group document.

This poll ends June 14, 2013.

There are two IPR claims against this document:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/778/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2087/

The authors has stated on the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any other IPR claims against this draft.
However if you are on the the mpls working group mailing list and aware of IPR that relates to this draft, the time to disclose this is now.

/Loa
(mpls wg co-chair)
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls