Subject: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:14:11 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05: 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-pals-vpls-pim-snooping/

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

[This was deferred from the May 24 telechat while I was in the act of
reviewing it :-) I'm not sure if my comments will be relevant, but I will
enter them anyway since I have them.]

- The shepherd report describes why this is not PS. Was BCP considered?
If people don't think this is appropriate as a BCP, it would be good to
include comments about whether we expect people to adopt these practices.
(Keeping in mind that an informational draft explicitly does not comprise
such a recommendation.)

-4: I think the security considerations need more, well, consideration.
For example, could an attacker use this method to deny service, or to
force traffic to follow a compromised path?

Editorial:

-1.1: "   Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have
point-to-point
   connections to routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is
a
   router."
That seems like a circular statement.  ("... connected to routers that
are attached to a LAN on which there is a router.")