Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>]

Shahram> It  has serious  security, complexity,  backward  compatibility and
Shahram> layer violation issues.

Tom> Can you elaborate on what you think these are? 

Shahram> Please refer to previous emails by me and David Allan. Most of them
Shahram> are listed there.  

I'm sorry, but  as far as I  can tell, those previous mails  simply say that
(a)  the  proposed  solution doesn't  do  some  things  that you  think  are
valuable,  and (b)  the proposed  solution doesn't  fit well  into  some ITU
architecture.

The  second  of  these  points  is  completely  irrelevant.   The  first  is
irrelevant too, unless there is a reasonable alternative proposed which does
more,  or if the  current proposal  doe so  little that  SPs don't  think it
worthwhile.   The MPLS OAM  stuff you've  been pushing  is not  a reasonable
alternative of  this sort  because (a)  it is MPLS-specific,  and (b)  it is
already crystal  clear that it will not  be accepted in the  IETF.  And it's
pretty clear  that a number of SPs  do think that what  the current proposal
does is worthwhile.

If  you can actually  cite specific  security issues  with the  proposal, it
would be valuable to know about them. 

Suggestions for reducing complexity would  also be valuable, if you have any
specific suggestions in that area. 

I don't understand what the backwards compatibility issue is, as there is no
previous version to be compatible with.

If you think there  are layer violation issues, then what you  need to do is
exhibit the particular set of  specific problems that will arise in practice
as a result of those violations.   If you cannot do this without referencing
some arcane ITU  architecture document, then the natural  conclusion is that
the  problem  is with  that  architecture's  layering  model, not  with  the
proposal.