Re: [mpls] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)

[Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Kathleen
Thanks for the review. Please see inline below.

Regards
Lizhong

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: No Objection
>
> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for your work on this draft.  The security review from 6 months
> ago hasn't been fully addressed in the draft and I think it would be
> helpful to do so.  There were responses given on list, but corresponding
> updates didn't happen for all of the comments.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05301.html
>
> For the first comment, the response was that this mechanism does not
> deprecate use of "Echo Reply".  The language in the first paragraph of
> section 3 should be made clear on that point.
>
> [Lizhong] OK, how about to change the first paragraph in section3 as below.

 This new
   message is used to replace Echo Reply message which is sent from the
   replying LSR to a relay node or from a relay node to another relay
   node. Note that the reply message from any node to the initiator will

   still be Echo Reply.


> For the second comment:
>     s4.1: Is the outermost label allowed to be set to 255 to support the
>     “ping” mode or must it always be set to 1, 2, etc. to support
> “traceroute"
>     mode - as described in RFC 4379 s4.3?   I know s5 is just an example
>     but it really looks like this extension is just supposed to be for
> fault
>     isolation.
>
> The response via email says it is possible to set it to 255, could this
> be made clear in the draft?
>
[Lizhong] in section4, we added that LSP ping is possible as below:

If operator has knowledge of the relay nodes,
   the initiator could do LSP Ping by directly sending Echo Request with
   Relay Node Address Stack TLV containing the already known relay
   nodes.

Is the above enough? It seems a bit redundant to say TTL is set to 255 in

Ping mode here.


>
> The third comment was addressed, thank you.
>
> It was also good to see the security considerations cover path discovery
> as well as DoS related attacks.  Thanks for that!
>
>
>