Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-03

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:10:24 -0700

Hi,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose 
of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more 
information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-03
Reviewer: Stig Venaas
Review Date: July 13, 2011
IETF LC End Date: July 11, 2011
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

The document is well written, and I only have two very minor issues.

Minor issues/questions:

1. Do the address families in the outer and inner FEC elements
    need to be the same? It should be pointed out, at least if
    that is a requirement.

2. Regarding security considerations. It seems that someone can
    use a series of recursive FECs to basically do source routing?
    Is this be a concern?

3. In the IANA considerations, why types 6 and 7 here? There aren't
    that many defined already, are there?

Editorial:

4. In section 3.2.1 paragraph 5 or so, it says "though the use of
    the MVPN". This should be "through".

5. The term "unsegmented" is used, while in the MPVN reference,
    draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10, non-segmented is used. These
    should match.

6. In the security considerations it says "cause he multipoint LSPs".

That is all,

Stig

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:42:04 -0400

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