Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-
review-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-secdir-lc-johansson-2012-08-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-08-29
Requested 2012-08-20
Authors Lou Berger , François Le Faucheur , Ashok Narayanan
I-D last updated 2012-08-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Leif Johansson
Assignment Reviewer Leif Johansson
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Result Ready
Completed 2012-08-30
review-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-secdir-lc-johansson-2012-08-30-00
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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 draft describes use of RSVP ASSOCIATION objects that extends
their current use as defined by GMPLS.

The subject matter is well beyond my area of expertise so take this
review with a grain of salt.

In the security considerations section the authors basically say that
using ASSOCIATION objects for (say) VOIP call reservations doesn't
introduce any new security issues beyond those that already exist for
the GMPLS use of ASSOCIATION objects.

I suspect that may be simplifying the issue but I can't find any
obvious counter-examples.

	Regards
	Leif
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - 

http://www.enigmail.net/



iEYEARECAAYFAlA+ch8ACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZndD9QCgijOhEHUlpvgcnjbadtiLvUWO
IZMAoKLD+m6VVMnvr133ICSZkfLTYryG
=xTw1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----