Hi Catherine,
Please let us know if this addresses your concerns.We did attempt to address your comment in -12. That paragraph now reads:
The use of the first nibble for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is specified in [RFC8296]. BIER sets the first nibble to 5. The same is true for a BIER payload as for any use of the first nibble: it is not possible to conclude that the payload is BIER even if the first nibble is set to 5 because an Ethernet pseudowire without a control word might begin with a 5. However, the BIER approach meets the design goal of [RFC8296] to determine that the payload is IPv4, IPv6 or with the header of a pseudowire packet with a control word.¶
Thanks,
Tony
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:05 PM Catherine Meadows via Datatracker - noreply at ietf.org <mailforwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Catherine Meadows
Review result: Has Nits
My apologies! I confused version 11 with version 12, and my review of version
11 was actually a review of version 12. So I will just enter it again:
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.
The summary of the review is Ready With Nits.
This draft concerns MPLS Network Actions (MNA) technologies. MNA technologies
are used to indicate actions that impact forwarding or other processing of the
packet along the Label Switched Path (LSP)and to transfer any additional
information needed for such processing. They are generally carried in
sub-stacks within the MPLS label stack. This document describes requirements
on solutions, and an architecture is proposed that is intended to capture best
practices. If a practice has issues but also has benefits, the issues are
pointed out, but the practice is not discouraged; instead mitigations are
suggested.
I think this is a good approach to the topic, and the draft gives helpful
advice that deserves to be captured in an Informational RFC.
The following paragraph has a nit:
The same is true for a BIER payload as for any use of the first nibble: it is
not possible to conclude that the payload is BIER even if the first
nibble is set to 5 because an Ethernet pseudowire without a control
word might begin with a 5. However, the BIER approach meets the
design goal of [RFC8296] to determine that the payload is IPv4, IPv6
or a pseudowire using a control word.
I think that that last should “a pseudowire not using a control word”
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
