Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-12
review-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-12-secdir-lc-meadows-2024-11-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-11-11
Requested 2024-10-21
Authors Loa Andersson , Stewart Bryant , Matthew Bocci , Tony Li
I-D last updated 2024-11-07
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Toerless Eckert (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Catherine Meadows
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TM7Gg9ktkYic8KreHTPZT0nkVzM
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-11-07
review-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-12-secdir-lc-meadows-2024-11-07-00
My apologies! I confused version 11 with version 12, and my review of version
11 was actually a review of version 12.   So I will just enter it again:

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 Nits.

This draft concerns MPLS Network Actions (MNA) technologies.  MNA technologies
are used to indicate actions that impact  forwarding or other processing of the
packet along the Label Switched Path (LSP)and to transfer any additional
information needed for such processing.   They are generally carried in
sub-stacks within the MPLS label stack.   This document describes requirements
on solutions, and an architecture is proposed that is intended to capture best
practices.  If a practice has issues but also has benefits, the issues are
pointed out, but the practice is not discouraged; instead mitigations are
suggested.

I think this is a good approach to the topic, and the draft gives helpful
advice that deserves to be  captured in an Informational RFC.

The following paragraph has a nit:

The same is true for a BIER payload as for any use of the first nibble: it is
not possible to conclude that the payload is BIER even if the first
nibble is set to 5 because an Ethernet pseudowire without a control
word might begin with a 5. However, the BIER approach meets the
design goal of [RFC8296] to determine that the payload is IPv4, IPv6
or a pseudowire using a control word.

I think that that last should “a pseudowire not using a control word”