Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-11
review-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-11-secdir-telechat-montville-2018-02-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-02-20
Requested 2018-02-08
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Adam Montville
Review review-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-11-secdir-telechat-montville-2018-02-13
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/FWX1s7A7oRWC1K2hfXE4tYrC29s
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 18)
Review result Not Ready
Draft last updated 2018-02-13
Review completed: 2018-02-13

Review
review-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-11-secdir-telechat-montville-2018-02-13

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 security ADs may prefer to see an elaborated Security Considerations section. From my perspective, the single sentence seeking to ensure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations don't result in hard OSPF failures is insufficient. What could be the outcome of such hard failures (i.e. what does an implementer need to understand about not heeding such considerations)? Also, a reader might presume that there are no additional BIER security considerations not otherwise handled in RFCs 8279 and 8296 respectively. If such a presumption is correct, then I would recommend explicitly stating so and perhaps even referring the reader to those Security Considerations for anything that may apply to this extension. Finally, in the first sentence of the Security Considerations, there exists "must" - is that intended to be MUST?

I don't have any further comments on this draft from a nit perspective nor from an efficacy perspective when it comes to routing, as this isn't my area of expertise.

Kind regards,

Adam