Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10
review-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10-secdir-lc-wallace-2014-10-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-10-28 | |
Requested | 2014-10-02 | |
Authors | Kiran Agrahara Sreenivasa , Emile Stephan , Quintin Zhao , Daniel King , Jonathan Hardwick | |
I-D last updated | 2014-10-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10
by Peter E. Yee
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Peter E. Yee (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Carl Wallace (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Carl Wallace |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2014-10-30 |
review-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10-secdir-lc-wallace-2014-10-30-00
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 describes a MIB that "describes managed objects for modeling of Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs”. I am not a MIB guy and did not review the definitions. The security considerations section mostly addresses SNMP related considerations in general via references to other specs. This seems fine. The only minor nit here is the following: Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), including full support for authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. RFC3410 only defines support for use of CBC-DES. If support for AES is intended instead of DES, that should be noted more strongly here. The requirement for "full support" of RFC3414 could be misinterpreted.