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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> 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