Re: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with COMMENT)

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 29/08/2017 03:43, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: 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-pals-p2mp-pw/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please check idnits. It flags some issues that should be resolved, especially
> 2119 language issues.
>
> The security considerations seem inadequate. I'm no expert here, but it seems
> like adding p2mp support in addition to p2p support has a good chance of
> creating some new considerations. If it really doesn't, it would be helpful to
> see arguments to that effect.
>
>

Hi Ben

Thank you for the review.

The RFC2119 errors are all using "MUST not" instead of "MUST NOT" the 
intent is obvious and
will surely be picked up by the RFC Editor as a matter of course.

The reference to RFC4447 is an oversight in updating from RFC4447 to 
RFC4447bis during the
gestation of the text. Again I am sure the RFC Editor would get that one.

The only other IDnit is a writespace error in ordinary text.

Clearly if there is a respin the editors should fix these points.

As to your security concern this draft is concerned with the signalling 
needed to set up the
p2mp PWs, and uses LDP exactly as any other MPLS system uses LDP so 
there are no new
security issues that arise. There is an issue with LDP needing a 
security upgrade, but that
is really outside the scope of this draft, and indeed is outside the 
scope of this WG.
We are discussing with SecDir reviewer suitable text on this point.

Best Regards

Stewart

suitable text