Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20
review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20-secdir-lc-harkins-2023-10-31-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 22) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2023-11-02 | |
Requested | 2023-10-19 | |
Authors | Bob Briscoe , John Kaippallimalil | |
I-D last updated | 2023-10-31 | |
Completed reviews |
Intdir Telechat review of -21
by Brian Haberman
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -20 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Genart Last Call review of -20 by Susan Hares (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -20 by Tim Wicinski (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -20 by Dan Harkins (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Harkins |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/e189L51GO6lfCoyX_HFMmUixJC0 | |
Reviewed revision | 20 (document currently at 22) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2023-10-31 |
review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20-secdir-lc-harkins-2023-10-31-00
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 draft defines some guidelines that tunneling protocols should use to allow for ECN signals to propagate consistently. It is very well-written and describes the problem well. The Security Considerations are fine and discuss why hop-by-hop integrity of ECN in not being proposed. The summary of the review is "Ready", but with a small nit. That nit is that figure 1 shows "subnet A" and "subnet B" but the accompanying text talks about "subnet 2", should be "subnet B".