I reviewed the document draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options in general
and for its operational impact.
Operations directorate reviews are solicited primarily to help the area
directors improve their efficiency, particularly when preparing for IESG
telechats, and allowing them to focus on documents requiring their attention
and spend less time on the trouble-free ones.
Improving the documents is important, but clearly a secondary purpose.
A third purpose is to broaden the OpsDir reviewers' exposure to work going
on in other parts of the IETF.
Reviews from OpsDir members do not in and of themselves cause the IESG to
raise issue with a document. The reviews may, however, convince individual
IESG members to raise concern over a particular document requiring further
discussion. The reviews, particularly those conducted in last call and
earlier, may also help the document editors improve their documents.
--
Review Summary:
Intended status: Proposed Standard
This document specifies how Label Edge Routers (LER) should behave
when determining whether to MPLS encapsulate an IPv4 packet with header
options. This document is motivated by the need to mitigate the existing
risks of IP options-based security attacks against MPLS infrastructure.
While this newly defined LER behavior is mandatory to implement,
it is optional to invoke.
Is the document readable?
Yes.
Does it contain nits?
No:
idnits 2.12.05
tmp/draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt:
-- The document date (May 2011) is 151 days in the future. Is this
intentional?
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Is the document class appropriate?
Yes.
Is the problem well stated?
Yes.
Is the problem really a problem?
Yes.
Does the document consider existing solutions?
Yes. The document brings together existing practices into a single
recommendation.
Does the solution break existing technology?
No.
Does the solution preclude future activity?
No.
Is the solution sufficiently configurable?
Yes. In a number of instances, the document recommends default policies, but
allows other policies to be configured if necessary.
Can performance be measured? How?
Performance will be enhanced by avoiding potential DOS attacks described in
Section 5.1 and 5.2. This can be measured via conventional metrics for
packet forwarding and label switching.
Does the solution scale well?
Yes. Improving security and DOS attack avoidance enhances scaling.
Is Security Management discussed?
Yes. This document is focused on avoiding security threats to MPLS
infrastructure.
------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Tsou [mailto:tena@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:18 PM
To: Bernard_Aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ronald Bonica'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'
Subject: Request for Operations Directorate Review of
draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05 by 2010-11-30
Hello,
As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to review
the following draft which is in IETF last call for it's operational
impact.
IETF Last Call:
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options/
Please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir mailing list
(ops-dir@xxxxxxxx) before 2010-11-30, and include the authors of the
draft as well.
A Check-list of possible questions/topics to address in an OPS-DIR
review may be found in Appendix A of RFC 5706.
Only include the questions that apply to your review.
The status of Operations Directorate Review could be found
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates
or
http://merlot.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/opsdir/index.cgi/t=4904/welcome
You could update the wiki page when you finish the review.
Thank you,
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf