IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-geo-12
review-ietf-lisp-geo-12-secdir-lc-jain-2025-05-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lisp-geo |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-05-06 | |
| Requested | 2025-04-23 | |
| Requested by | Jim Guichard | |
| Authors | Dino Farinacci | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-02-18 (Latest revision 2026-02-18) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -09
by Ines Robles
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Prachi Jain (diff) Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Yingzhen Qu (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Tim Wicinski (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Prachi Jain |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-geo by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/W4zJvU0Lwc5YgFizi9AuIMHJjks | |
| Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 19) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-05-06 |
review-ietf-lisp-geo-12-secdir-lc-jain-2025-05-06-00
Thank you to the authors. Overall the document is well written and presents no significant security concerns requiring attention. I have some really minor nits that the authors may consider addressing at their discretion. Section 8 : >> applying policies [see Secuirty Considerations section] for who can access them spellcheck, Secuirty to Security >>there are additional steps that can be taken to protect threats Suggestion to make it `protect against threats` >>Implementations exist which do encryption for various contract-tracing (virus-related) applications. Suggestion to make it ‘Implementations exist that do encryption for various contract-tracing (virus-related) applications.’