Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07
review-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07-secdir-lc-sheffer-2013-06-20-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2013-06-25 | |
Requested | 2013-05-30 | |
Authors | Tomohiro Otani , Kenichi Ogaki , Diego Caviglia , Fatai Zhang , Cyril Margaria | |
I-D last updated | 2013-06-20 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Alexey Melnikov
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Yaron Sheffer (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Yaron Sheffer |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2013-06-20 |
review-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07-secdir-lc-sheffer-2013-06-20-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 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 defines additional GMPLS-specific requirements on the PCE architecture. It would be an understatement to characterize this reviewer as a non-expert on PCE and GMPLS. That being said, I believe the Security Considerations are correct in saying that this document does not add any additional security issues on top of PCE. I would recommend to add a pointer to where such considerations are in fact listed, e.g. Sec. 10 of RFC 5440. Though security folks will cringe at TCP-MD5 being described as the most practical security solution in that section. Thanks, Yaron