Subject: [mpls] Comments to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-01

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:28:14 -0700

Dear Authors and All,
below are more detailed comments to the document that I've promised at the
mike:

   - Section 1.4 GAL is “Generic Associated Channel Label” not “Generic
   Alert Label”
   - Section 1.4 Generic Associated Channel usually is G-Ach, not G-ACH.
   - MEP – Maintenance Entity Group End Point
   - MIP – Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
   - Section 2.1 SP (Service Provider) not listed, expanded in Section 1.4
   Terminology
   - Enumerate models 1(a), 1(b), …
   - Security Reference Model 2(b) I don’t think that trusted zone can be
   limited to a single S-PE. I’d think that in this scenario a SS-PW or perhaps
   consecutive SS_PWs between S-PE1 and S-PE2 are the trusted zone and the rest
   of MS-PW segments, i.e. CE1-T-PE1 to S-PE1 and S-PE2 to T-PE2-CE2 are
   untrusted zones.
   - How Security Model 1(a) is different from the Reference Model 3? If
   Ref.Model 3 is multi-provider case, then there' should be S-PE(s) and P
   router depicted might be not that significant to the model. Then how
   Ref.Model 3 is different from Ref.Model 1(b)? Only because one is multi-SP
   whereas another case is single SP? If that is the case, explicit text would
   be helpful.
   - Section 4.2 Can unauthorized Lock on MSPL-TP bi-directional connection
   be considered as “Unauthorized Deletion of Data Traffic”?

Your consideration and feedback greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Greg