Telechat Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-05
review-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-05-secdir-telechat-meadows-2015-10-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-10-20 | |
Requested | 2015-10-01 | |
Authors | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Mingui Zhang , Radia Perlman , Ayan Banerjee , Anoop Ghanwani , Sujay Gupta | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Catherine Meadows (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Russ White (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Catherine Meadows |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2015-10-29 |
review-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-05-secdir-telechat-meadows-2015-10-29-00
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. This document presents a number of clarifications, corrections and updates to the RFCs associated with the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) protocol. None of seem directly related to security, although some of it might support security by helping to give nodes a more accurate picture of state of the network. I have a few comments about the security considerations, mainly having to do with clarification: The Security Considerations Section reads: See [RFC6325] for general TRILL security considerations. This memo improves the documentation of the TRILL protocol, corrects five errata in [RFC6325], updates [RFC6325], [RFC7177], and [RFC7179] and obsoletes [RFC7180]. In most cases, it does not change the security considerations of those RFCs. E-L1FS FS-LSPs can be authenticated with IS-IS security [RFC5310]. I found this a little unclear. Is the sentence "E-L1FS FS-LSPs can be authenticated with IS-IS security [RFC5310].” intended to be the sole modification to the security considerations of the RFC’s. If so, it would be helpful to make this clearer by saying something like: In most cases, it does not change the security considerations of those RFCs, except in the following case. I consider document this Ready with nits. Cathy Meadows Catherine Meadows Naval Research Laboratory Code 5543 4555 Overlook Ave., S.W. Washington DC, 20375 phone: 202-767-3490 fax: 202-404-7942 email: catherine.meadows at nrl.navy.mil