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 rev. 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 Vasseur Jp, George Swallow, Ina Minei
Draft last updated 2009-09-10
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Charlie Kaufman
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-secdir-lc-kaufman-2009-09-10
Review completed: 2009-09-10

Review
review-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-secdir-lc-kaufman-2009-09-10

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 ;-)