Early Review of draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-11
review-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-11-secdir-early-eastlake-2018-07-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2018-06-30 | |
| Requested | 2018-06-05 | |
| Requested by | Philip Eardley | |
| Authors | Alan Ford , Costin Raiciu , Mark J. Handley , Olivier Bonaventure , Christoph Paasch | |
| I-D last updated | 2018-07-19 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -11
by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Ines Robles (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -15 by Sheng Jiang (diff) |
|
| Comments |
We've just started a WG last call on draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis. It would be great to have an early Security Area review, to allow any issues to be discussed prior to /at Montreal. Thank-you! Here's the WGLC text: <<This starts a WG Last Call for draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis. Please send comments by the end of June. Please note there are three IPR disclosures (we're working on getting them added to the rfc6824bis page): * two are inherited from RFC6824 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mptcp-multiaddressed * one is inherited from draft-paasch-mptcp-syncookies (which got include in rfc6824bis) https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2678/ >> |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 18) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2018-07-19 |
review-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-11-secdir-early-eastlake-2018-07-19-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. The summary of the review is Ready. This draft specified version 1 of Multipath TCP obsoleting version 0. The paths are identified by the 4-tuple of IP addresses and ports for each path. The services offered to applications are the same as TCP. The additional information needed for setting up and tearing down paths, synchronizing flows, etc., is communicated using TCP options. The Security Considerations section appears to be good and the security mechanisms adequate to achieve the documents goal of being as secure as TCP. There is a good if somewhat generalized Threat Analysis in RFC 6181 as well as an Architecture document in RFC 6182 that considers security aspects. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com