Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-07
review-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-07-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-05-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-05-27 | |
Requested | 2014-03-20 | |
Authors | Frederic JOUNAY , Yuji Kamite , Giles Heron , Matthew Bocci | |
I-D last updated | 2014-05-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Tobias Gondrom (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tobias Gondrom |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-05-30 |
review-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-07-secdir-lc-gondrom-2014-05-30-00
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. The draft is informational and about requirements and a framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire (PW) over MPLS Packet Switched Networks. Th e document appears ready for publication. A couple of comments: 1. Even though this document is only about requirements, it uses in a couple of places 2119 language. In principle that could even been seen as improving "readability", however, I am not sure whether that is appropriate usage for a requirement document, as 2119 is intended to signal conformance with a specification (which this ID is not). 2. The security consideration section is basically empty, only referring to RFC3916 and P2P PW. Considering that this is only a requirements document, this can be sufficient. (Note: it could have been nice to think about whether or how a move from P2P to P2MP PW might change or require additional security requirements for the specification. However, as this is only the requirements document and not the specification, this question can also be answered in the following spec.) 3. Nits: section 5 security considerations: should have a reference for "initial P2P PW definition" Thank you and best regards. Tobias