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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 30 August 2017 22:35 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, pals-chairs@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, pals@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150413253677.16896.7700461041465359.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:35:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/8tKCHPSlk7UNC7e5SURMn3-Jva4>
Subject: [Pals] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Kathleen about the MD5 issue. I recognize it's not unique to this
document, but eventually we do need to deal with it.

  intended for bidirectional service whereas the latter is intended for
   both unidirectional, and optionally bidirectional service.
   Requirements for P2MP PW are described in [RFC7338]. P2MP PW can be

This is quite hard to read because P2MP and P2P are close. Perhaps replace
"former" and "latter" with names.

   constructed as either Single Segment (P2MP SS-PW) or Multi Segment
   (P2MP MS-PW) Pseudowires as mentioned in [RFC7338]. P2MP MS-PW is
   outside the scope of this document. A reference model or a P2MP PW is

Nit: you have singular/plural disagreement

   Parameters field in octets. If this value is 0, then it references
   all PWs using the specified grouping ID. In this case, there are
   neither other FEC element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.) present, nor any

Which grouping ID? It's not clear to me what field this corresponds to.

[Pals] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf… Eric Rescorla