Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-03
Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Thu, 14 July 2011 17:42 UTC
Return-Path: <erosen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836DE21F8CA6 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9bBi5-yulOW for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED82621F8C99 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; l=846; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310665327; x=1311874927; h=to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:reply-to:date:message-id:from; bh=+GMvhrzqNae6Bxv5IEgjNWTKlwk4mH1f6/bMzFV3/dY=; b=lWTCokrmWkCLrVBcgdPwr1LR9XXFuQc6j5Q9ZBZZLOrbNOjVNS0X1P7i n2dP97wcQsYm7CIK2GuR1VKhE25EYD/2YTcebY8mV44dbGgQDgJ1rk0aS awTC0gJCcIKuguXGM0hPefJvmk09MEE/t/7gWOQ/JKx2hzrJQJG77Mx0h o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,530,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="3011441"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2011 17:42:06 +0000
Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6EHg6Ur007347; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:42:06 GMT
Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6EHg4M3013208; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:42:05 -0400
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:24 -0700. <4E1E17D0.10602@venaas.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:42:04 -0400
Message-ID: <13207.1310665324@erosen-linux>
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:11:08 -0700
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec@tools.ietf.org, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-03
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:42:07 -0000
Stig, Thanks for your review. > Do the address families in the outer and inner FEC elements need to be the > same? There is no requirement for the address families to be the same. Since no such requirement is stated, I think we're okay. > In the IANA considerations, why types 6 and 7 here? There aren't that many > defined already, are there? All smaller values are requested by other internet-drafts, and some are even deployed. > Regarding security considerations. It seems that someone can use a > series of recursive FECs to basically do source routing? Is this be a > concern? I don't see any security issues here, beyond what is already mentioned in the security considerations section. Do you think there's an issue that needs further discussion? I've incorporated your editorial comments. Eric