Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07
review-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07-secdir-lc-roca-2024-02-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2023-07-11 | |
Requested | 2023-06-27 | |
Authors | Peter Psenak , Nagendra Kumar Nainar , IJsbrand Wijnands | |
I-D last updated | 2024-02-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07
by Adrian Farrel
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Vincent Roca Genart Last Call review of -07 by Mallory Knodel |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Vincent Roca |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Gc7aP8l9QBbEB4aDrosP6fbHl_U | |
Reviewed revision | 07 | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2024-02-06 |
review-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07-secdir-lc-roca-2024-02-06-00
Hello, 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. Summary: Ready I have no particular secdir-related comment for this document. The "Security Considerations" section is well documented and understandable. However I have a few extra comments for this ID, totally disconnected from this secdir review: - s/is/are/ in: "Existing security concerns documented in [RFC8362] is applicable" - s/is/are/ in: "both BIER and OSPF layer is under a single administrative domain" - Question: in section 2.2, only the lowest 20 bits of the "Label" field are used ("The 4 leftmost bits MUST be ignored."), whereas there is an extra 4-bit field, "BS Len". Why not shrinking a bit field "Label" and moving "BS Len" there to save 4 extra bytes in this sub-TLV? There's probably a good reason not to do so, but nothing is said. - Comment: field "Reserved" is discussed in section 2.2, but nothing is said about "Reserved" in section 2.1. Regards, Vincent