Liaison statement
Response to comments in LS173 - Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-02 (ref #030.03)
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2010-05-31 |
From Group | mpls |
From Contact | Loa Andersson |
To Groups | ITU-T-SG-15-Q10, ITU-T-SG-15-Q12, ITU-T-SG-15-Q14, ITU-T-SG-15-Q9 |
To Contacts | greg.jones@itu.int |
Cc | yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp greg.jones@itu.int ghani.abbas@ericsson.com hhelvoort@huawei.com malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn hklam@alcatel-lucent.com tsbsg15@itu.int ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int dward@juniper.net adrian.farrel@huawei.com rcallon@juniper.net paf@cisco.com stbryant@cisco.com mpls@ietf.org mpls-tp@ietf.org swallow@cisco.com |
Response Contact | loa.andersson@ericsson.com |
Technical Contact | loa.andersson@ericsson.com swallow@cisco.com |
Purpose | For information |
Attachments | (None) |
Body |
Thank you for your draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-02, the Internet Draft has been updated and we have requested that it is published as a RFC on the standards track. The comment in the liaison is: Section 3.1.1. LSP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding: Replace the fourth paragraph: "Support for the Pipe and Short Pipe DiffServ tunneling and TTL processing models described in [RFC3270] and [RFC3443] is REQUIRED by the MPLS-TP. Support for the Uniform model is OPTIONAL." With: "Support for the Pipe and Short Pipe DiffServ tunneling and TTL processing models described in [RFC3270] and [RFC3443] is REQUIRED by the MPLS-TP. Support for the Uniform model is for REQUIRED for Diffserv tunnelling. The Uniform model MUST NOT be used for TTL processing." Reason for the requested change: The modified fourth paragraph does not fully address our comment on the -01 version which was intended to provide support for the PST application. The uniform model must be supported to ensure that a LSP in a PST can be configured to have the same PHB as the LSP being monitored. Also the uniform model for TTL processing must not be used to avoid problems with the TTL addressing of MIPs. The response is: We have changed the paragraph text to: The Uniform, Pipe and Short Pipe DiffServ tunneling and TTL processing models described in [RFC3270] and [RFC3443] MAY be used for MPLS-TP LSPs. Note however that support for the Pipe or Short Pipe models is REQUIRED for typical transport applications, in which the topology and QoS characteristics of the MPLS-TP server layer are independent of the client layer. Specific applications MAY place further requirements on the DiffServ tunneling and TTL processing models an LSP can use. It is not the intent of this draft to place generalised restrictions on implementations in advance of the requirements determined by specific applications. The comment in the liaison is: Section 6. Security Considerations: Replace: 2. Any MPLS label processed at the receiving LSR, such as an LSP or PW label, has a label value that the receiving LSR has previously distributed to the peer beyond that neighbour (i.e., when it is known that the path from the system to which the label was distributed to the receiving system is via that neighbour). With: 2. Packets that arrive on an interface or, for PW or hierarchical LSPs, LSP with a given label value should not be forwarded unless that label value is assigned to an LSP or PW to be carried by the peer LSR or PE over that interface or LSP. Reason for the requested change: The text is confusing, the replacement text is aligned with text that was proposed to be added to the MPLS-TP framework draft. The response is: We believe that your proposed text requires an extension to the MPLS data plane that is outside the scope of the current MPLS-TP project. Proposed extensions to the MPLS data plane to support enhanced security are welcome and should be submitted to the MPLS working group for consideration via the normal IETF process. Loa Andersson George Swallow MPLS Working Group co-chairs |