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