Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14
review-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14-secdir-lc-sheffer-2021-05-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2021-05-07 | |
| Requested | 2021-04-22 | |
| Authors | Peter Psenak , Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Zhibo Hu | |
| I-D last updated | 2021-05-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -14
by Yaron Sheffer
(diff)
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yaron Sheffer |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/gskBxhXy2_Kiyeg-bNqK4X1Liic | |
| Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 19) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2021-05-03 |
review-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14-secdir-lc-sheffer-2021-05-03-00
This document specifies extensions (TLVs, sub-TLVs etc.) to IS-IS in support of Segment Routing on IPv6. The document states that the security considerations are a union of security considerations from a bunch of predecessor document. This seems reasonable to me. Details: * The first sentence of the Abstract is missing a word, perhaps "architecture". * Introduction: typo: "This documents". * Capabilities: to allow for future extensibility, you should probably add "Implementations receiving this TLV MUST ignore any other bits that may be set in the Flags field".