Hi, Les, On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > wrote:
> Spencer - > > Thanx for the review. > V14 has been published and it attempts to address the Security concerns > raised by you and others. > Look forward to your feedback. > Looks exactly the way I hoped it would. Thanks much! Spencer > > Inline. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 8:33 PM > > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment- > > routing-13: (with COMMENT) > > > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: 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-spring-segment-routing/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I'm not surprised to see additional security alarm bells going off for > the SRv6 > > variant - this is quite similar to the additional congestion awareness > alarm > > bells that went off when we were evaluating MPLS (which is usually pretty > > well > > contained) over UDP (which can get around the Internet with a lot less > effort > > than MPLS without UDP). That's an opportunity to rethink the impact of > > changes to an underlying technology. > > > > Which leads me to the point I should be making as a TSV AD. I'm not > seeing > > any obvious mechanism that would tell you that you've managed to set up > > your segment routing so that some paths will undergo persistent > congestion. > > You might consider whether it's worth recommending that people doing > > segment routing take a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8084/ > and > > decide how much, if anything, would be useful to say about that. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7510#section-5 is an early example of > the kind > > of thing I'm talking about. > > > [Les:] Clarification that new congestion avoidance requirements are not > introduced by SR has been added to the draft. The use of techniques (such > as RFC 8084) may be applicable and this is also mentioned. > > Les > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
