Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-11
review-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-11-secdir-lc-nystrom-2014-01-09-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-01-05 | |
Requested | 2013-12-12 | |
Authors | Attila Takacs , Don Fedyk , He Jia | |
I-D last updated | 2014-01-09 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -11
by David L. Black
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by David L. Black (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Magnus Nyström (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Magnus Nyström |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 13) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-01-09 |
review-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-11-secdir-lc-nystrom-2014-01-09-00
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 document describes extensions to RSVP-TE in support of the establishment of Operation, Administration and Management entities in the context of GMPLS . The document seems well written. I would suggest removing the last sentence of the Security Considerations section ("Cryptography can be used...") since it does not really offer any hint as to how to use cryptography. Instead, the previous sentence could be replaced with something like: "For a more comprehensive discussion of GMPLS security, and attack mitigation techniques, please see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [ RFC5920 ]." -- Magnus