RE: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501156A3C@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
IESG did not yet approve this document today. I am awaiting more details from the security ADs. Hope to get them this week. Below is an email exchange I had with Frqancois to quickly get an answer from the main editor of the doc. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: donderdag 6 maart 2003 15:29 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt > > > Bert, > > I really can't think of anything specific to DSTE with respect to > classification in the presence of IPsec. Whether DSTE is used > or not, it > is the same as for MPLS TE and Diff-Serv. > In other words, MPLS TE assumes that the IP header destination address > can be used meaningfully to classify packets into Forwarding > Equivalence > Class for MPLS Forwarding. Diff-Serv assumes that the DSCP > header can be > used meaningfully to apply Diff-Serv. DS-TE still only uses IP > destination and DSCP. > > In brief I don't see a specific "DSTE Requirements" on this issue. > Nothing more, nothing less than for existing TE and existing > Diff-Serv. > No? > If I am correct, I don't think we should bring it up in the document. > > Cheers > > Francois > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: 06 March 2003 14:02 > >> To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) > >> Subject: FW: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt > >> > >> > >> Would you have some suggested text? Or an explanation why not? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Bert > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Steve Bellovin [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2003 20:12 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt > >> > >> > >> Should this document say anything about the difficulty of packet > >> classification in the presence of IPsec? > >> > >> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) > >> http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of > >> "Firewalls" book) > >> > >> >