Early Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu-09
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu-09-secdir-early-hollebeek-2026-05-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2026-05-22 | |
| Requested | 2026-05-05 | |
| Requested by | Mahesh Jethanandani | |
| Authors | Daniel Voyer , Sriram Gopalakrishnan , Thomas Graf , Vyasraj Satyanarayana , Cristian Staicu | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-06-16 (Latest revision 2026-06-10) | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Early review of -09
by Tianran Zhou
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -09 by Tim Hollebeek (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Hollebeek |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SZsh9KFqk7-OV2DQIpWDb9ZZ7CQ | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2026-05-19 |
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu-09-secdir-early-hollebeek-2026-05-19-00
My only feedback is whether SHOULD is the right thing to use in the security considerations. The requirements are already pretty weak and handwavy ... with SHOULD on top of that, they'll just get ignored by most.