Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08
review-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08-secdir-lc-roca-2013-09-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-09-10
Requested 2013-08-02
Authors Adrian Farrel , Hideki Endo , Rolf Winter , Yoshinori Koike , Manuel Paul
I-D last updated 2013-09-12
Completed reviews Genart Early review of -08 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Brian E. Carpenter
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 09)
Result Has nits
Completed 2013-09-12
review-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-08-secdir-lc-roca-2013-09-12-00
Hello,

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 refers to [RFC6371] and [RFC6941] for detailed security
discussions. I have no problem with that. However I have two comments:

1/ It says:
   "Implementations therefore are required to offer security mechanisms
    for OAM.  Deployments are strongly advised to use such mechanisms."
These sentences do not use the RFC2119 key words. Is that deliberate?

2/ I really have problems understanding the following claim:
   "Mixing of per-node and per-interface OAM on a single node is not
   advised as OAM message leakage could be the result."
Can you be more explicit in the I-D? It's important since it's probably not
discussed in [RFC6371] and [RFC6941].


Minor comments:

** MEP is used without being defined. 


Cheers,


  Vincent