[babel] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 25 October 2020 17:35 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160364731499.17476.11455568556595523172@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 10:35:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/eLmv1HBl8zCwNuI7fYUgenTwc4E>
Subject: [babel] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06

Reviewer: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Review result: Has Nits

Section 7, Second Paragraph:

  “A node MUST NOT send more that one Source Prefix sub-TLV in a TLV, and a node
   receiving more than one Source Prefix sub-TLV in a single TLV SHOULD
   ignore this TLV.  It MAY ignore the whole packet.”

1. “That” -> “Than”
2. This paragraph implies that a node might accept the TLV with more than one
Source Prefix sub-TLV, but it does not state when a node can do that. You might
want to elaborate on the conditions that a node is allowed to do that.

Otherwise, the security considerations section seems reasonable and addresses
the issues that might arise because of the added flexibility of the source
prefix.

Regards,
 Rifaat

Re: [babel] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review o… David Schinazi
[babel] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bab… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef via Datatracker
Re: [babel] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Juliusz Chroboczek
Re: [babel] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen