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 revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-10-09
Requested 2018-09-25
Authors Pushpasis Sarkar , Uma Chunduri , Shraddha Hegde , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler
I-D last updated 2018-10-06
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Adam W. Montville (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Adam W. Montville
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready
Completed 2018-10-06
review-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07-secdir-lc-montville-2018-10-06-00
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