Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04
review-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04-secdir-lc-sheffer-2017-03-30-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-03-31 | |
| Requested | 2017-03-17 | |
| Authors | Luca Martini , George Swallow , Elisa Bellagamba | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-03-30 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -01
by Adrian Farrel
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Yaron Sheffer (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff) Genart Last Call review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yaron Sheffer |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2017-03-30 |
review-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04-secdir-lc-sheffer-2017-03-30-00
This document proposes a way to aggregate status messages of multiple pseudowires carried on the same MPLS-network LSP. The Security Considerations simply refer to an earlier RFC, and this makes sense in this case. However from a broader perspective, I think the community should consider another look at its security assumptions. After what we've seen in recent years, maybe it's not a good idea to refer back to a 2006 document that contains this sentence: "To prevent unwanted packet insertion, it is also important to prevent unauthorized physical access to the PSN," We have all learned the hard way that this advice is not practical - bad actors WILL get physical access to your network.