Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06
review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06-secdir-lc-farrell-2020-09-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-09-10
Requested 2020-08-27
Authors Balazs Varga , János Farkas , Lou Berger , Andrew G. Malis , Stewart Bryant
Draft last updated 2020-09-24
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Harish Sitaraman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stephen Farrell
State Completed
Review review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06-secdir-lc-farrell-2020-09-24
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/qa-4hzVr3DaOKCOMeCKSSb0gKh0
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-09-24
review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06-secdir-lc-farrell-2020-09-24-00
(Sorry for the missed review deadline.)

Other than general doubts about "I'll only use this in one administrative
domain", the only specific thing that concerned me here was that
draft-ietf-detnet-security doesn't seem to include any analysis of detnet/UDP
(and indeed says that detnet runs over IP) and the security considerations
section here is purely by reference. Given that draft-ietf-detnet-security
seems to have done a reasonable job of analysis, it's a pity to not have that
for the detnet/UDP case. All that said, I don't have any concrete problems to
highlight with detnet/UDP, though of course I've not been thinking about this
as $dayjob, so there may be issues there.