[Pals] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: (with DISCUSS)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: Discuss

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-mc-pon/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this extension to ICCP really compatible with section
10 of RFC7275?  RFC7275 says "It ought not be deployed on
or over the public Internet.  ICCP is not intended to be
applicable when the Redundancy Group spans PEs in
different administrative domains" whereas this draft only
refers to the "well-managed" stuff and says nothing about
multiple domains, and this draft also refers to public
contexts such as telephone poles. Can you justify for me
how using ICCP here is safe? (It may well be, but I'm
entirely unsure, probably mostly due to my ignorance of
PON deployments.)

The same point was made in the secdir review [1] which
did get a response. Sadly, I didn't get how the response
answered the question. 

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06762.html