Document Action: 'LISP Threats Analysis' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-lisp-threats-15.txt)

The IESG <> Wed, 03 February 2016 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0654C1B357E; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 13:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'LISP Threats Analysis' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-lisp-threats-15.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 13:59:05 -0800
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,,, The IESG <>,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 21:59:05 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'LISP Threats Analysis'
  (draft-ietf-lisp-threats-15.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

This document review the kinds of security threats that arise when LISP is being used.
It discusses the kinds of attacks and mechanisms, so as to note clearly where LISP modifies
the normal assumptions.   It then discusses particular attacks that can be mounted.  The
document concludes with some general recommendations on deployment and configuration
techniques that can ameliorate some of the attacks.

Working Group Summary

The document has going through multiple reviews and restructurings.  The current document
is very clear and readable.  The documented is intended to provide information to the
community, and does not modify the protocol nor mandate specific techniques.  As such, the
working group is requesting that this be published as an Informational RFC.
In addition, there were multiple reviews by different people to ensure that the full range of
threats were covered and accurately described. Finding the right wording was challenging, but
was accomplished. 

Document Quality

The shepherd has performed a final review, and agrees that this document is useful and ready
for publication as an Informational RFC.


   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Joel Halpern
   Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Deborah Brungard