[pim] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp -policy-ping-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Gorry

My apologies for missing this email.

Thanks for your comments.

This document is the extension of RFC 6425 so I agree and added a sentence that security considerations of section 8 of RFC 6425 should be followed. 

Also I fixed the NiT. 

I hope this addresses your concern?

Thanks
Hooman

-----Original Message-----
From: Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <[email protected]> 
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 6:13 AM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Gorry Fairhurst's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-15: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for preparing this document.

As I understand, the described mechanism generates a response over a protocol that is not rate-limited or congestion controlled. Therefore, I'd like to see text that guards against a Denial-of-Service attack to send MPLS echo requests/replies that seek to increase their workload. As such, I suggest a warning/scoping is added that this traffic needs to avoid sending/processing such requests, possibly in the last para of the introduction.

RFC 6425 includes some text that might be a suitable starting point:

   As is described in [RFC4379], to avoid potential denial-of-service
   attacks, it is RECOMMENDED to regulate the LSP ping traffic passed to
   the control plane.  A rate limiter should be applied to the incoming
   LSP ping traffic.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

NiT:

/As specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6425] ,/As specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6425],/
- Please remove space befor comma.



_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]