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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 29, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

That works for me.

> 
> 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.

I think it might be helpful to include a couple of sentences saying those exact things—but I will defer to whatever comes of the discussion with the SecDir reviewer.

Thanks!

Ben.