[Idr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-19

Takeshi Takahashi via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 03 November 2020 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562BE3A14AF; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:10:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Takeshi Takahashi via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.21.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160438382127.25127.15298196716431193428@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 22:10:21 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tAszFktcmqxXQ_OPBmuNhb8f6jo>
Subject: [Idr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-19
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:10:22 -0000

Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi
Review result: Ready

This draft extends internet-draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to cope with IPv6.
As mentioned in the Security Consideration section, no new security issues are
added to the GBP protocol.

Note that, as mentioned in the security consideration section of the 5575bis
draft, any relaxation of the validation procedure may allow unwanted Flow
Specifications to be propagated, but this draft does not incur any such
relaxation because the validation procedure remains the same.

Very minor editorial comment:

[Section 3.2]
the same as in Section 3.1 -> the same as in Section 3.1.