Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08
review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08-secdir-lc-meadows-2023-12-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2023-12-22
Requested 2023-12-08
Authors Balazs Varga , János Farkas , Andrew G. Malis
I-D last updated 2023-12-19
Completed reviews Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Catherine Meadows
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_sJAa6hKHDR-v392plLAYv4zDT4
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-12-19
review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08-secdir-lc-meadows-2023-12-19-00
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
comments.

This document presents BGP constructs that may be used to implement certain
types of network segmentation.

This document describes how sequencing information can be encoded in the IP
header to be used to support the addition of Packet Replication, Elimination,
and Ordering Functions (PREOF) to Deterministic Networking (DetNet )IP. The
PREOF service protection method relies on copies of the same packet being sent
over multiple maximally disjoint paths and uses sequencing information to
elimination duplicates. PREOF has already been implemented for MPLS, and the IP
solution is derived from that.  This document descibes how to derive the needed
sequencing information from the IP header.  In particular it describes what
information MUST and MAY be included in the header fields so that the sequence
information may be derived.

I agree with the draft’s security considerations section, which says that no
new security considerations are introduced.  The procedure is based on a
similar solution for MPLS, and so the MPLS security considerations apply.

A nit:

1. A possible implementation of POF function
should be
A possible implementation of the POF function