Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-08
review-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-08-secdir-telechat-xia-2017-02-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-01-31
Requested 2017-01-03
Authors Xian Zhang , Haomian Zheng , Rakesh Gandhi , Zafar Ali , Pawel Brzozowski
I-D last updated 2017-02-09
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Dale R. Worley
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Liang Xia
Assignment Reviewer Liang Xia
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 08
Result Ready
Completed 2017-02-09
review-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-08-secdir-telechat-xia-2017-02-09-00
Hello,
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 reviews how the LSP association is to be provided using Resource
Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling in the context
of GMPLS end-to-end recovery scheme when using restoration LSP where failed LSP
is not torn down.  In addition, this document discusses resource sharing-based
setup and teardown of LSPs as well as LSP reversion procedures.

Firstly, no new signaling extensions are defined by this document, and it is
strictly informative in nature. So, no new security issues arise in this
document. Secondly, the security considerations in [RFC3209] [RFC4872]
[RFC4873] and [RFC6689] are included in the security consideration section of
this draft, nothing more is missed. In consequence, I have no more security
issues.

Summary: this document appears in reasonably good shape, and no more security
issues. I think it is ready.

Thanks!

B.R.
Frank