IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr-08
review-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr-08-secdir-lc-nir-2026-06-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2026-06-09
Requested 2026-05-26
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Jaganbabu Rajamanickam , Rakesh Gandhi , Royi Zigler , Jie Dong , Jisu Bhattacharya
I-D last updated 2026-08-06 (Latest revision 2026-08-06)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Loa Andersson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Chongfeng Xie (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -13 by Ted Lemon (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoav Nir
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/qDXUjEQb4mylMnTzoL1YbT1PyKo
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-06-10
review-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr-08-secdir-lc-nir-2026-06-10-00
This document describes a post-stack MNA header to carry ancillary data for
MPLS.

The security considerations section follows the considerations-by-reference
pattern, pointing to RFC 9789 and the main MNA draft, both of which have
extensive security considerations sections. The only thing this document calls
out is that the ancillary data carried may be sent in the clear, so some other
means of protecting it (outside this specification) should be used.  I think
that in this case, using this pattern is fine.