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

["Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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?

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!