[Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 02:26 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A11A1279EB; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 19:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, pals-chairs@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, pals@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149179118062.3148.8706303119268760928.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 19:26:20 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/itshnkbJXbkAcVWcMlcPHtLOcF8>
Subject: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:26:21 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-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-pals-status-reduction/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In this text, -iii. If the new value is smaller then the original one, the PE will operate according to the original timer value for a period 3.5 times the original timer value, or until the first valid PW status refresh reduction message is received. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain the choice of 3.5, so that if this mechanism is deployed for a network where that number is the wrong number, people will know how to adjust it? There are several occurrences where s/then/than/ is needed, I think. I spotted at least 3. Other nits … S/octetc/octets/ S/RECOMENDED/RECOMMENDED/ S/vaules/values/ In section 7. Security Considerations The security considerations of [RFC6478] are adequate for the proposed mechanism since the operating environment is almost identical to the one where this protocol would be deployed. It should also be noted that since this protocol is designed to be deployed between two adjacent PEs connected by a physical link, it is not possible to misdirect or inject traffic without compromising the PW transport link itself. All these situations are covered in the security considerations of [RFC6478]. There's an appeal to physical adjacency as a defensive mechanism. If this protocol is deployed in a tunnel over UDP, would “physical adjacency” still be true?
- [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-iet… Spencer Dawkins