Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03
review-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03-secdir-lc-kelly-2018-02-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-02-09
Requested 2018-01-26
Other Reviews Rtgdir Telechat review of -03 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Scott Kelly
Review review-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03-secdir-lc-kelly-2018-02-22
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Ub-iZHY-iaY1bBZmF4HLtgaKpEg
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2018-02-22
Review completed: 2018-02-22

Review
review-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03-secdir-lc-kelly-2018-02-22

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready with issues.

From the last line of the abstract, this draft updates RFC 4761 by defining new flags in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.

I'm not expert in routing protocols, so I can't say for sure that the one minor issue I'm calling out is the only one. The security considerations section is very brief, saying only

   This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
   inherent in the existing [RFC4271].

RFC4271 is the BGP4 RFC. I agree that those security considerations apply, but as noted in the abstract, this draft updates RFC4761, and since that document calls out additional security considerations, don't those also apply here? Shouldn't this document's security considerations also reference RFC4761?

--Scott