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 IETF 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 2024-08-30 (Latest revision 2023-12-05)
Completed reviews Intdir Telechat review of -21 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -20 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -20 by Susan Hares (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -20 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -20 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Harkins
State Completed
Request IETF 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".