Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:32:21 +0300

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security 
area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This document proposes the addition of MPLS flow labels, to enable 
multiplexing of a single pseudowire (PW) over multiple paths, while 
retaining the packet order within each IP flow.

The document's security considerations simply reference several former 
MPLS documents. I believe this is appropriate in this case.

Nits: although very readable, the document needs another round of 
proofreading. The following is from the abstract and the first sentence 
of the Introduction (!):

- Abstract: "most forwarding engines": the sentence is unclear - hash 
what? Also a dangling "END" at the end of the abstract.

- Intro first sentence: exit -> exist, equipments -> equipment/devices.

Thanks,

     Yaron

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:13:36 +0100

Yaron

Thank you for the review.

The Abstract should read:

Abstract

    Where the payload of a pseudowire comprises a number of distinct
    flows, it can be desirable to carry those flows over the equal cost
    multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network.
    Most forwarding engines are able to hash at least part of the MPLS label stack
    and use this mechanism to balance MPLS flows over ECMPs.

    This document describes a method of identifying the flows, or flow
    groups, within pseudowires such that Label Switching Routers can
    balance flows at a finer granularity than individual pseudowires.
    The mechanism uses an additional label in the MPLS label stack.

The "END" is a cut and paste error from a review comment.

s/(ECMP) exit/(ECMP) exist/

Adrian, please let me know whether you want a new version.

- Stewart

On 12/05/2011 06:32, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
> IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
> these
> proofreading. The following is from the abstract and the first 
> sentence of the Introduction (!):
>
>

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html