Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14
review-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14-secdir-lc-harkins-2014-10-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-10-27 | |
Requested | 2014-10-16 | |
Authors | Young Lee , Greg M. Bernstein , Jonas MÃ¥rtensson , Tomonori Takeda , Takehiro Tsuritani , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios | |
I-D last updated | 2014-10-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -14
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff) Genart Telechat review of -15 by Robert Sparks Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Dan Harkins (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Harkins |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-10-30 |
review-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14-secdir-lc-harkins-2014-10-30-00
Hello, I have reviewed draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength 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 is a requirements document for additions to the PCEP protocol to support path computation in a wavelength-switched optical network. It describes what needs to be added to requests/responses to support routing and wavelength assignment to a path computation element (that supports both functions) for a path computation client. The security considerations are basically a punt. There's information that an operator may not want to disclose and "[c]onsideration should be given to securing this information." That seems a little thin. At the very least some explanation of how this should be done. Do only the TLVs that represent these required additions require confidentiality? Is KARP a potential solution to this problem? If so it might be nice to explain that; if not, then why and what else would be required? It is a well-organized and well-written document. I would say it is "ready with nits", my nits being the thinness of the Security Consideration section. regards, Dan.