IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-multipath-25
review-ietf-pce-multipath-25-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2026-05-27-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-multipath |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 29) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2026-06-03 | |
| Requested | 2026-05-20 | |
| Authors | Mike Koldychev , Samuel Sidor | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-08-24 (Latest revision 2026-06-23) | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Early review of -19
by Italo Busi
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -18 by Cheng Li (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -25 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -25 by David Mandelberg (diff) Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -27 by Vidhi Goel (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David Mandelberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-multipath by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HFC9yy6az2avMqox3DGTUR-Lsmc | |
| Reviewed revision | 25 (document currently at 29) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2026-05-27 |
review-ietf-pce-multipath-25-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2026-05-27-00
(nit) Could zero weights in the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV trigger a denial of service from dividing by zero? Would it make sense to require Weight to be non-zero? (nit) Section 3.4 says "If no opposite-direction path exists, then this field MUST be set to 0, a value reserved to indicate the absence of a Path ID." What should an implementation do if it receives a PATH-ATTRIB with multiple MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLVs, some of which have zero Opposite Direction Path ID and some have non-zero Opposite Direction Path ID? If one implementation treats that as no opposite path (ignoring the non-zeroes) and another implementation ignores the zeroes, could that be a security issue? Otherwise, looks good.