Hi, Brian, Thanks for your review! Please see inline.
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2015-01-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-04 > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: Almost ready > -------- > > Minor issues: > ------------- > > 1. Hop-by-hop options, and therefore Router Alert, are well known to > cause a serious performance issue or are simply ignored by many > routers (as warned in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7045#section-2.2). > A pointer to that warning would be appropriate. I do not believe this concern is very applicable to the MPLS OAM RAO. The whole point of RAO in an MPLS LSP is to be intercept the packet and punt it to a slow path, and it is not injected back. The MPLS OAM Router Alert option is invisible to the MPLS Label-switched hops, and when the LSP finishes, it is only processed once. I am also not sure I understand the suggested action behind this comment. Are you suggesting we add a pointer to that Section, or that exact paragraph to the Security Considerations? > > 2. I'm a bit surprised to realise that new definitions of Router Alert > options are not routinely notified to the 6MAN WG. We had run this through 6MAN, both on list and presenting twice in IETF meetings. Thanks! Carlos. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
