Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)

On 29 Sep 2015, at 21:20, Mach Chen wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> The following text is to resolve Kathleen's DISCUSS, hope this also 
> resolves your comments.
>

Yes it does, thanks!

> Those security considerations specified in RFC4379 and RFC7110 apply 
> for this document.
> In addition, this document introduces the Reply Mode Order TLV. It 
> provides a new way for an unauthorized source to gather more network 
> information, especially the potential return path(s) information of an 
> LSP. To protect against unauthorized sources using MPLS echo request 
> messages with the Reply Mode Order TLV to obtain network information, 
> similar to RFC4379, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a 
> means of checking the source addresses of MPLS echo request messages 
> against an access list before accepting the message.
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:37 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org;
>> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; 
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org; 
>> rcallon@juniper.net
>> Subject: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: 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-reply-mode-simple/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The security considerations say "no further considerations required"
>> without further explanation. While I don't doubt that is true (except 
>> for those
>> mentioned in Kathleen's DISCUSS), it would be helpful to mention the 
>> new
>> protocol elements and procedures added, and why the wg believes they 
>> don't
>> add any considerations beyond those in the referenced drafts.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls