Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-13
Yes
(David Ward)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2008-06-03)
Unknown
Section 3 does not specify what type of IPv6 address is legal or illegal for the TLV defined in there. Other TLV definitions in this document do that. Worth adding the same statement here about link-local addresses not being legal?
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-06-04)
Unknown
Section 4: > All other sub-TLVs defined in this document MAY occur at > most once in a Link TLV. RFC 2119 "MAY" means something that is optional (you can decide not to do it). Probably "MUST NOT occur more than once" is meant here. Reference [OSPFV3] should point to draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update instead of RFC 2740?
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-06-04)
Unknown
Rob Austein's secdir review noted two issues that really should get addressed. (1) The ASCII art describing the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA does not match the text. The text looks reasonable, but the ASCII art appears to have the U and S2 bits of the LSA type field swapped -- should be "|1|0|1|", not "|0|1|1|". (2) The security considerations correctly points out that the security considerations from the base OSPFv3 protocol apply, but do not mention that the security considerations from the base traffic engineering extensions specification (RFC 3630) also apply. Please add a reference to [TE] in the security considerations section.