Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-07
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-07-secdir-lc-meadows-2012-11-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-11-13
Requested 2012-10-25
Authors IJsbrand Wijnands, Toerless Eckert, Nicolai Leymann, Maria Napierala
Draft last updated 2012-11-08
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Suresh Krishnan
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Catherine Meadows 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-07-secdir-lc-meadows-2012-11-08
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2012-11-08

Review
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-07-secdir-lc-meadows-2012-11-08

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.

This document describes procedures for splicing IP multicast trees, constructed by Protocol

Independent Multicast, together with multipoint Labeled Switched Paths (LSPs)  in MPLS domains in Multipoint LDP (mLDP)

these can be created.   In particular,

it describes a way of transmitting the necessary information about which end-user packets are associated with

which LSPs in the "opaque value" field of an mLDP Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) element.  Previously, such

information had been sent in out-of-band protocols such as  PIM and BGP. 

This document mainly concerns ways of representing the different kinds of maps between end-user packets and LSPs

in FECs.  Thus, the only security considerations are inherited from the base LDP specification, as the authors point out.

I believe that this use of mLDP FECs is  appropriate from a security point of view, because the information being transmitted is for use by mLDP.

Indeed, I would argue that reducing complexity by no longer using an out-of-band protocol improves security.




Catherine Meadows

Naval Research Laboratory

Code 5543

4555 Overlook Ave., S.W.

Washington DC, 20375

phone: 202-767-3490

fax: 202-404-7942

email: 

catherine.meadows at nrl.navy.mil