Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07
review-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07-secdir-lc-montville-2018-10-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-10-09
Requested 2018-09-25
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Adam Montville
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07-secdir-lc-montville-2018-10-06
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/cjxdS3sl1qvRkcU1WfoMHbghaKU
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2018-10-06
Review completed: 2018-10-06

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07-secdir-lc-montville-2018-10-06

This draft does not seem to introduce any security considerations beyond what has already been treated in RFC5286, provided the last claim in the security considerations of RFC5286 still hold (label information is to neighbors with a trusted LDP session).

One suggestion I have is to rewrite the last sentence of the security considerations of this draft. At present that sentence ends up with, "...this does not introduce any new security issues *other than* as noted in the LFA base specification..." (emphasis added), which seems to suggest that the existing RFC has somehow introduced a new security issue to this draft. 

Perhaps something like, "This document does not change any of the discussed protocol specifications [insert list here], and the security considerations of the LFA base specification [RFC5286] therefore continue to apply." Or something like that.

Kind regards,

Adam