Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13
review-ietf-lisp-sec-13-secdir-lc-takahashi-2017-10-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-10-04
Requested 2017-09-20
Draft last updated 2017-10-10
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -12 by Manav Bhatia (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takeshi Takahashi
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lisp-sec-13-secdir-lc-takahashi-2017-10-10
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-10-10

Review
review-ietf-lisp-sec-13-secdir-lc-takahashi-2017-10-10

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.
 
I would say this document is ready with nits, but the nits are very minor.

[comments that require chages to the current draft]
1. I guess the authors mix up "reply" and "replay" in Section 6.6. "Reply attacks" could be "Replay attacks".

[comments that does not necessarily require changes to the current draft]
2. The security aspect of LISP is addressed not only in this draft but also in RFC6830 and in RFC7835. If I understood correctly, LISP-SEC addressed a part of the threats mentioned in RFC7835. Then, it would be nice if the authors could clarify what types of further threats that are not mentioned in LISP-SEC still exist by referring to RFC6830 and RFC7835.

3. DOS/DDoS was mentioned in the introduction section, but it was not discussed in the later sections. It would be nice if the authors could address DoS/DDoS issues as well.