Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks
RFC 5920
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com to martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com |
|
2010-07-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-07-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5920' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-07-09
|
09 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-06-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2010-06-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-06-01
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-06-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-06-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-06-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-05-26
|
09 | Tim Polk | Waiting for email from lyndon ong confirming permission to reuse OIF text in RFC |
|
2010-05-26
|
09 | Tim Polk | Status date has been changed to 2010-06-04 from |
|
2010-05-26
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Note]: 'Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com) is the Document Shepherd.' added by Tim Polk |
|
2010-03-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-11
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] Typo and question, end of section 4.1: This section is focused outsider attach. The insider attack is discussed in section 4.4. … [Ballot comment] Typo and question, end of section 4.1: This section is focused outsider attach. The insider attack is discussed in section 4.4. Change first sentence to "This section is focused on outsider attacks." Are all of section 4.1-4.3 focused on outsider attacks or just section 4.1? --- In section 5.2.4: Bullet formatting in list after "The following is a non-exhaustive list of PW-specific threats:" is incorrect. In a bullet list a little farther along: - Since guessing a valid PW label is not difficult - it is relatively easy to introduce seemingly valid foreign packets delete second bullet marker "-" " --- Several bullet lists in section 5.2.5 are formatted inconsistently (I'll stop commenting on bullet list formats now!) --- Section 7.1.1: add citation of RFC 2385 to mention of TCP MD5? |
|
2010-03-11
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-03-10
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-03-08
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-03-08
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-09.txt |
|
2010-03-05
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-04 |
|
2010-03-02
|
09 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-03-02
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Recuse from Yes by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Tim Polk from Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-04 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-01
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2010-03-01
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-08.txt |
|
2009-11-25
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-11-18
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2009-11-18
|
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-11-02
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2009-11-02
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-10-27
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Note]: 'Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com) is the Document Shepherd.' added by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-10-25
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-10-25
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07.txt |
|
2009-09-23
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::External Party by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-17
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-17
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Note]: 'Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com) is the Document Shepherd.<br>This document is pending review and suggested changes by Sandy Murphy on behalf of SecDir.' added … [Note]: 'Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com) is the Document Shepherd.<br>This document is pending review and suggested changes by Sandy Murphy on behalf of SecDir.' added by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-07-13
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-07-13
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-06.txt |
|
2009-05-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Change Notice email list have been change to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework@tools.ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com from mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework@tools.ietf.org |
|
2009-05-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Note]: 'Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com) is the Document Shepherd' added by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-11
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proto Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd … ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proto Writeup for draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com), MPLS WG Secretary, is the Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework. The Document Shepherd personally reviewed the Document and believes this version (05) is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The Document is the result of a design team including key actors of MPLS and GMPLS technologies. The Document was presented to both MPLS and CCAMP Working Groups over the past few IETF meetings. The Document early review and Last Call was notified on MPLS, CCAMP and PWE3 Working Groups mailing lists. As such, the Document Shepherd believes that the Document has had adepquate review and does not have any concern with the depth or breadth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? The Document was not reviewed by the Security Directorate but authors of the Document have security background. The Document was Gen-ART reviewed. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The Document Shepherd does not have any issue nor concern with the Document. No IPR disclosure related to the Document has been filed. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The consensus is quite solid. Strong support was openly expressed for the adoption of the Document as an MPLS WG document, for example. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No strong or extreme position was raised against the Document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. Some nits exist (4 warnings) for the Document. == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. Section can be removed == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer? (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? The document contains the correct pre-RFC5378 work disclaimer that can be be found at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf == Unused Reference: 'RFC4103' is defined on line 2611, but no explicit reference was found in the text Reference should be removed == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-03 Reference should be updated The Document does not contain content that would need specific review, beyond what has already been done up to now. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The Document has two References Sections (Normative and Informative). The Normative Section only includes documents which are either in RFC or STD status. There are no normative downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The Document has an appropriate IANA Secion. The Document does not specify protocol extensions. The Document is Informational track. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No section of the Document is written -and would need to be written- in a given formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document provides a security framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks. This document addresses the security aspects that are relevant in the context of MPLS and GMPLS. It describes the security threats, the related defensive techniques, and the mechanisms for detection and reporting. This document emphasizes RSVP-TE and LDP security considerations, as well as Inter-AS and Inter-provider security considerations for building and maintaining MPLS and GMPLS networks across different domains or different Service Providers. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing worth noting. Good consensus. The Document needs to be progressed as others now reference it. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? No implementation as this is not a protocol specification. The document quality is good as well as the review. The document was gen-Art reviewed. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.' Martin Vigoureux is the Document Shepherd Adrian Farrel is the responsible Area Director |
|
2009-05-06
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-03-09
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-05.txt |
|
2009-02-06
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sandra Murphy. |
|
2008-11-03
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-04.txt |
|
2008-07-14
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-03.txt |
|
2008-06-06
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2008-06-06
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
|
2008-02-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-02.txt |
|
2007-11-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt |
|
2007-09-12
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-00.txt |