>> Well it doesn’t have to be. I am a bit hesitant to just point to another >> long complicated RFC. This text has gone through review for quite a long >> time and many ECN experts decided we should write it this way. And this text >> did go through IESG review when RFC6830 was made experimental RFC. > > Procedere explained in RFC6040 are actually not that complicated. It’s mainly > the table provided in section 3.2. Please have a look at the draft. However, > I disagree that it „negative“ to point for this part to another RFC. This is > not a unique problem, that’s why we have RFC6040 and all approaches that face > this problem should point to RFC6040 and implement the same strategy.
I am just worried it will be ignored because there are implementations out there that do what they already do. If we want to suggest to consider the procedures in RFC6040, I am okay with that, but you need to provide the wording because I certainly don’t want it too strong. >> >> >>> 3) Sec 7.1. only takes about ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" packets while >>> "IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1" should be addressed as >>> well. >> >> This is discussed in length. I don’t know how you could have missed this. > > I didn't miss that discussion but the text got fixed incorrectly because it > doesn’t not address IPv4 through the whole text. Please have a look and fix > that as well. I think this is mainly an editorial issue but and important one > to fix. I am sorry. I don’t know what you think is wrong. Please point to the text specifically. >> >>> 6) And now the more-discussion-needed point: >>> So my underlying concern is the same as brought up by the TSV-ART review >>> that >>> lisp information are not end-to-end integrity protected or authenticated. >> >> I would like you to be more specific. Beacuse there is a lot of security in >> the protocol and we believe the current drafts, in their entirety, inicdate >> so. > > I was thinking about the option to add an authenticated hash, anyway… LISP uses lisp-crypto (RFC8061) which uses AEAD. >> >>> However, while briefly thinking about how this could be eventually >>> realized, I >>> noticed that there is actually no mechanism to extend the LISP header in any >> >> Right, by design so it is efficient for hardware AND software forwarding. >> But we do have the LISP-GPE header that can be used for extensions. But that >> has limited deployment. >> >>> way. There is no version, no option and the LISP header seems to have a >>> fixed, >> >> We decdied as a working group that the UDP port number would indicate what >> header follows and therefore what LISP version is used. > > Okay, that needs to be explained in the doc! > > Mirja The document says that UDP port 4341 is assigned and when so, the LISP header as docmented is used. We shouldn’t just encourage versioning if the philosophy it not to churn often. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
