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

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