Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-03
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-03-secdir-lc-josefsson-2015-03-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-03-18
Requested 2015-03-05
Authors Eric C. Rosen , IJsbrand Wijnands , Yiqun Cai , Arjen Boers
I-D last updated 2022-03-10 (Latest revision 2015-03-23)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Elwyn B. Davies
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Simon Josefsson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Simon Josefsson
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready
Completed 2015-03-19
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-03-secdir-lc-josefsson-2015-03-19-00
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.

This document follows up on earlier RFCs and describe how to do
multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPN/tunnels, which were underspecified earlier.

I believe the document is ready.

Multicast in tunnels can have security considerations, but this RFC
does not introduce the concept.  It refers to earlier RFCs that
introduce the concept and contain the security considerations.  I don't
feel that this RFC introduce particular important new concepts to
warrant a more extensive security considerations.

I have a general security caveat with all things in the MPLS/routing
world: the specifications are large (hence slight delay of
this review as it interfered with skiing) and are dense to read due to
the large amount of acronyms used. This is a real challenge for anyone
who wants to analyze security properties of the protocols or
deployments.

/Simon


Attachment:


pgpcsjo_OEtsB.pgp




Description:

 OpenPGP digital signatur