Subject: [MBONED] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-25: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 05:56:33 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-25: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 15:38:11 -0700

Hi

I would like some minor changes to the mtrace draft.

In 4.1.1 it says:

   Mtrace2 supports a non-local client to the LHR/RP.  A router SHOULD,
   however, support a mechanism to filter out queries from clients
   beyond a specified administrative boundary.  The potential approaches
   are described in Section 9.2.

In 9.2 it says:

   A router providing Mtrace2 functionality MUST support a source
   verification mechanism to drop Queries from clients and Requests from
   peer router or client addresses that are unauthorized or that are
   beyond a specified administrative boundary.  This verification could,

I think 4.1.1 should be changed to say "drop queries", similar to 9.2.

Figure 2 is wrong. It shows 17 bits for Query ID and 15 for Client
Port #. They are however 16 bits each.

Stig

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 12:04:39 +0900

Hi Stig,

> On 2018/08/01, at 7:38, Stig Venaas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 

That's right.
And also above 4.1.1's SHOULD should be MUST.
Thanks for pointing this out.

> Port #. They are however 16 bits each.

Oh, good catch.

Thanks for your careful check. I submit the revised draft ASAP.

Regards.

Hitoshi