Last Call Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-19
review-ietf-alto-path-vector-19-secdir-lc-weiler-2021-11-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-08-25
Requested 2021-08-11
Authors Kai Gao , Young Lee , Sabine Randriamasy , Y. Richard Yang , Jingxuan Zhang
I-D last updated 2022-09-23 (Latest revision 2022-03-20)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -19 by Sam Weiler (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -17 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Tim Chown (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -19 by Tim Chown (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -22 by Sam Weiler (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sam Weiler
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-alto-path-vector by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/kX6Bn-17jYtvN_gfM6RRY5-0nOA
Reviewed revision 19 (document currently at 25)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-11-06
review-ietf-alto-path-vector-19-secdir-lc-weiler-2021-11-06-00
This and the prerequisite doc, draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new, seem to
adequately call out differences v. base ALTO (rfc7285).

I'm somewhat concerned about the building of what's looking like an overlay
routing system protected only by pairwise relationships between the parties
rather than by authenticating the data (as BGPsec aims to do), but that's a
much broader architectural concern, which does not directly impact this
extension.