RE: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 13 May 2012 21:08 UTC

From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Yoav Nir' <ynir@checkpoint.com>, ietf@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info@tools.ietf.org
References: <329567CB-2EC4-4D9A-8E52-5D9D22C24417@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <329567CB-2EC4-4D9A-8E52-5D9D22C24417@checkpoint.com>
Subject: RE: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:08:34 +0100
Message-ID: <007d01cd314c$8f990c60$aecb2520$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQFQj/2ZSa0yZlPsIw/HdQ+ygAHEMZfBePeQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Thanks Yoav,

RFC Editor note entered for your observation.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav
> Nir
> Sent: 13 May 2012 07:47
> To: ietf@ietf.org list; secdir@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> The document does not define any new procedures or mechanisms, and
> mentions this fact three times throughout the document. It formalizes an email
> by Adrian Farrel clarifying the procedures for processing an ASSOCIATION
object
> on a path message.
> 
> The security considerations section repeats that the document does not define
> new procedures, and concludes that no security considerations are added. This
is
> not a valid deduction, as clarification often involves prohibiting
non-functional or
> insecure interpretation of the original document text. However, in this case
the
> clarification is not about such insecure configurations, so the document is
fine.
> 
> One textual comment, though: section 2.2 near the bottom of page #5 lists 3
> possible values for association ID. The second option is "The LSP ID of the
LSP
> protecting an LSP". This is not clear. I suggest rewording as "The LSP ID of
the
> protecting LSP" without an indefinite "an LSP".
> 
> Yoav=

SecDir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03 Yoav Nir
RE: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-… Adrian Farrel