IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Mon, 22 August 2011 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E083721F8BA7; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UOwDmP1WUjSo; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D16721F8BA2; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; l=2157; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1314042413; x=1315252013; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=hdNkjBGEcy2UsME4PHee+0t/7yDaZSGb4RpyfsWr1wQ=; b=OATphETc64QyPGnlCUihS+xTDp82o32CPeeJfiQvliVyIgY1OARu4+xd Ulg5ng8C5gCkQ/CXvnNDWREhlyz+mWc7/At/brtAjqRB9benyVH54K64x h3WCzH4nhooG12nIBNiNOxmKlys/wEd+QgxtILrCLZoydlQ2fcTXuwQ2k 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIAALyxUk6tJV2c/2dsb2JhbABBmDuPWneBQAEBAQEDEgEdSQwEAgEIEQQBAQsGFwEGASAlCQgBAQQBEggangIBnnqFaV8EhzEvkEmEYYcf
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,264,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="15425625"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2011 19:46:52 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7MJkqWC018204; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:46:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:46:52 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:46:51 -0500
Message-ID: <7CC717E2F49DAA4A827DA3FEA237111B05BA3147@XMB-RCD-103.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJKb=at2yYHAojy5hgGskkcmkoyuowA+BchEE1RK-YQGw@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08
Thread-Index: Acxg1YOrNUKqTl8IRCeuf69EHYWXRwALnnkQ
References: <CALaySJLyNKHp0_QzaTbbX0FB9RASprJ2cknZQjp_=RqFgno4LQ@mail.gmail.com><065801cc60d3$a9d77f20$fd867d60$@olddog.co.uk> <CALaySJJKb=at2yYHAojy5hgGskkcmkoyuowA+BchEE1RK-YQGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2011 19:46:52.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D52C5E0:01CC6104]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:49:52 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:45:48 -0000

Hi Adrian- 

Thanks for taken care of the comment; very much appreciated. 

Ross/ Adrian- 

I saw the email that a word-smiting related comment from Ross has been put as a note to RFC editor by Adrian. I.e., we assume no action from authors is required. Please advise, if otherwise. 

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: barryleiba@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
> mapping.all@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
> mapping-08
> 
> > Since the authors and document shepherd haven't responded, and since
> Stephen
> > mentions the review in Comment, I will take on responding...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >> I have one minor question; in section 2.2 is this:
> ...
> >> On that last "SHOULD": what does it mean for any other LSR *not* to
> >> ignore the flag?  That is, what can they do?  How can they not ignore
> >> it, since there's no defined behaviour for them to do with it?
> ...
> > It would be extreme, IMHO, to say that a transit LSR MUST ignore the
> flag.
> > The fact that there is no behavior required of the transit LSR and
> nothing that
> > pertains to the LSP that can be thought of for the LSR to do, is not
> reason to
> > forbid the LSR from looking at the flag, saying "Ooooh, that's
> interesting", and
> > sending a message to its third cousin in Baltimore to gossip about the
> fact.
> > In the same way that a router "SHOULD" ignore the source IP address on
> a packet
> > when it routes it, there is no reason to prohibit examination of the
> field.
> 
> OK... works for me.  As I said, it was just a minor question.
> 
> For what it's worth, I think I would put such situations in
> non-normative language, as something like, "This flag is not
> applicable to, and has no use for LSRs other than the Egress LSRs ."
> But what's there is fine.  Thanks for answering my query.
> 
> Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email