Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
review-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02-secdir-lc-salowey-2017-04-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-04-07
Requested 2017-03-17
Authors Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi , Wim Henderickx
I-D last updated 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2017-04-17)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Orit Levin (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joseph A. Salowey
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Has issues
Completed 2017-04-10
review-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02-secdir-lc-salowey-2017-04-10-00
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
last call comments.

The document does not explicitly discuss the use-cases for multi instance
IS-IS.  Is this intended to be used a security mechanism for isolation?  The
document should provide some guidance here.

If the mechanism is intended as an isolation mechanism for security then I
think more guidance is appropriate.   For example, in this case shouldn't each
instance have its own authentication configuration?

If it is not intended as a security mechanism then the document probably say so.