Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-
review-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-secdir-lc-kaufman-2009-09-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2009-09-08 | |
| Requested | 2009-08-17 | |
| Authors | JP Vasseur , George Swallow , Ina Minei | |
| I-D last updated | 2009-09-10 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Charlie Kaufman
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Charlie Kaufman |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Completed | 2009-09-10 |
review-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-secdir-lc-kaufman-2009-09-10-00
I am reviewing 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. Feel free to forward to any appropriate forum. This document specifies a relatively minor clarification to RFC 3209, and as far as I can tell that clarification has no security consequences (unless you call non-interoperability because of different interpretations of the spec a security issue). Typos (maybe): In sections 2.1 and 2.1, I found 2 “must”s, 2 “must not”s, 2 “should”s, and one “may” that I believe should have been all caps per RFC 2119. I’ve never been very good at that distinction, however, so the authors MIGHT have it right ;-)