Subject: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:01:04 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: 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-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/

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

There were changes that seem to have been agreed as as
result of the secdir review. [1] Some of those could I
think nearly but not quite be discuss level, but as they
aren't and the discussion seems to have started, I'll
ballot no-objection but I do hope that the promised
changes get made, and I'd recommend cycling back to the
secdir reviewer (Sandy Murphy) as it wasn't clear to me
that the discussion reached closure just before the
holidays.

   [1]
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06296.html

- Could this be used as a way to nicely disguise a DoS?
I'm not sure if that's new to this or not though.

- Thanks for the applicability statement in the security
considerations. Makes me wonder about MPLS/UDP but sure.

- Saving a single bit to distinguish address families via
length seems unwise here, as everywhere.