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 | 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 | 2021-11-06 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -19
by Samuel Weiler
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Suresh Krishnan (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Tim Chown (diff) Artart Last Call review of -16 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -19 by Tim Chown (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -22 by Samuel Weiler (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Samuel Weiler |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | 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.