Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-07-31
Requested 2022-06-21
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Stefano Previdi , Clarence Filsfils , Ketan Talaulikar , Paul Mattes , Dhanendra Jain
I-D last updated 2022-07-18
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -18 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Intdir Early review of -18 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -18 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 26)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-07-18

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.

Summary: Ready

I have no comment regarding the security part. Most issues seem fairly classic
when dealing with BGP peering and the Security Considerations section reminds
it's the responsibility of the network operator to guarranty that traffic is
restricted to trusted domain/nodes. I don't know the domain but it seems

Otherwise, a minor comment.
Section 2.4.1: I suggest being a bit more informative when describing Type and
Length fields (this is the first mention of the packet format): >   o  Type: 12
>   o  Length: 6.

There's no explanation and no unit.
As I understand, 12 is a reserved value for a "Preference Sub-TLV", say it, and
Length is 6 bytes long, encompassing the Flags, RESERVED, and Preference
fields, say that too (at least the 1st time).