Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-21
review-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-21-secdir-lc-farrell-2022-11-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-11-23
Requested 2022-11-02
Authors Satoru Matsushima , Clarence Filsfils , Miya Kohno , Pablo Camarillo , Daniel Voyer
I-D last updated 2022-11-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -22 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -21 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -23 by Mike McBride (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stephen Farrell
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/jgAWwA4f1V8MhicyV3P-6gLxYBQ
Reviewed revision 21 (document currently at 24)
Result Has issues
Completed 2022-11-05
review-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-21-secdir-lc-farrell-2022-11-05-00
This is a relatively minor issue, but worth fixing. This draft is aiming for
standards-track. RFC2804 says that we won't standardise lawful intercept
mechanisms, yet the draft specifies in 6.1 that Args.Mob.Session can be used
for that. I'd say best is to just drop that example usage to avoid having to
worry about this.

Otherwise, if one believes the basic security claim of SRv6 (that traffic can
be kept within a "trusted" local n/w) then the security considerations here are
correct that this doesn't add anything new.