Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-
review-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-secdir-lc-nir-2012-05-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-05-22
Requested 2012-05-03
Draft last updated 2012-05-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Ben Campbell
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Yoav Nir
Assignment Reviewer Yoav Nir
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-secdir-lc-nir-2012-05-18
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2012-05-18

Review
review-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-secdir-lc-nir-2012-05-18

Hi,

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 document does not define any new procedures or mechanisms, and mentions this fact three times throughout the document. It formalizes an email by Adrian Farrel clarifying the procedures for processing an ASSOCIATION object on a path message. 

The security considerations section repeats that the document does not define new procedures, and concludes that no security considerations are added. This is not a valid deduction, as clarification often involves prohibiting non-functional or insecure interpretation of the original document text. However, in this case the clarification is not about such insecure configurations, so the document is fine.

One textual comment, though: section 2.2 near the bottom of page #5 lists 3 possible values for association ID. The second option is "The LSP ID of the LSP protecting an LSP". This is not clear. I suggest rewording as "The LSP ID of the protecting LSP" without an indefinite "an LSP".

Yoav