[Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 06 April 2022 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A94C3A0D0F; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net, vbeeram@juniper.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <164926916815.6320.14712426445146792189@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 11:19:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/i_jfF4aG97b0y7wx4YUk2r2WsIY>
Subject: [Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 18:19:29 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to David Mandelberg for the SECDIR review. ** Section 6.3 In order to indicate the SMP preemption priority, the 16-bit Reserved field [RFC4873] of the PROTECTION object is redefined. The last 32 bits in the PROTECTION object defined in [RFC4873] are updated as follows: I had trouble following the references in the above text to understand what exactly was being updated. John Scudder help me understand the follow: RFC 4872 reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header. Subsequently, RFC 4873 allocated several fields from that field, and left the remainder of the bits reserved. This specification further allocates the preemption priority field from those formerly-reserved bits. I’d recommend included text to this effect. ** Concur with Paul and Francesca that a registry for LSP (Protection Type) Flag would be helpful. ** Section 8. For this reason, it is important not only to use security mechanisms as discussed in [RFC4872] but also to preserve privacy of information about protecting LSPs within the network. How would one "preserve the privacy of information about protecting LSPs"? Is this equivalent to acknowledging that detailed knowledge of a network's topology can help an attacker better target or improve the efficacy of an attack?
- [Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-… Jeong-dong Ryoo