Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode-04
review-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode-04-secdir-early-shore-2022-10-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2022-11-05 | |
Requested | 2022-09-30 | |
Requested by | Keyur Patel | |
Authors | Jeffrey Haas | |
I-D last updated | 2022-10-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -04
by Melinda Shore
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff) Genart Last Call review of -04 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff) |
|
Comments |
Please review and provide your comments! |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Melinda Shore |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/hCa05SYmdlQdN-n6QrEJ2B_MOoE | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2022-10-30 |
review-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode-04-secdir-early-shore-2022-10-30-00
This draft defines a subcode for the BFD "Cease" message, for "BFD Down." The document is succinct and clearly written, but the security considerations are a bit too succinct, consisting only of the single sentence "This document introduces no additional BGP security considerations." That may well be true (if, say, the subcode is strictly informative and the receiver does not change its behavior on receipt of that subcode), but an additional sentence or two explaining why that's true would be appreciated. A nod to the security considerations in RFC 5880 would probably be appropriate, as well as a mention of whether or not the mechanisms defined in that document are mandatory to implement.