Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-05
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-05-secdir-lc-dunbar-2018-12-11-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-12-11 | |
Requested | 2018-11-27 | |
Authors | Nobo Akiya , George Swallow , Stephane Litkowski , Bruno Decraene , John Drake , Mach Chen | |
I-D last updated | 2018-12-11 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -03
by Jonathan Hardwick
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Joerg Ott (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Zitao Wang (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Linda Dunbar (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Linda Dunbar |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2018-12-11 |
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-05-secdir-lc-dunbar-2018-12-11-00
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. The summary of the review is Ready with comment The described mechanism for LSP Multipath Ping is very clear. The Security Consideration re-uses the description of RFC8029, which is very comprehensive. It would be better if the draft describes how to prevent intermediate LSRs in between the Initiating LSR and Responding LSR from mis-using the detailed link information (e.g. forwarding to somewhere else). Best Regards, Linda Dunbar