Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-25: (with COMMENT)

Hi

I would like some minor changes to the mtrace draft.

In 4.1.1 it says:

   Mtrace2 supports a non-local client to the LHR/RP.  A router SHOULD,
   however, support a mechanism to filter out queries from clients
   beyond a specified administrative boundary.  The potential approaches
   are described in Section 9.2.

In 9.2 it says:

   A router providing Mtrace2 functionality MUST support a source
   verification mechanism to drop Queries from clients and Requests from
   peer router or client addresses that are unauthorized or that are
   beyond a specified administrative boundary.  This verification could,

I think 4.1.1 should be changed to say "drop queries", similar to 9.2.

Figure 2 is wrong. It shows 17 bits for Query ID and 15 for Client
Port #. They are however 16 bits each.

Stig






On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-25: 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-mboned-mtrace-v2/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned