[Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Mon, 10 April 2017 20:16 UTC
Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDDB126DC2; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149185541631.3069.18371935891180367330@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:16:56 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/dONWScKhL5F1J8UnTdXtA3aIsaM>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:16:57 -0000
Reviewer: Joseph Salowey Review result: Has Issues 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 explicitly discuss the use-cases for multi instance IS-IS. Is this intended to be used a security mechanism for isolation? The document should provide some guidance here. If the mechanism is intended as an isolation mechanism for security then I think more guidance is appropriate. For example, in this case shouldn't each instance have its own authentication configuration? If it is not intended as a security mechanism then the document probably say so.
- Re: [Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ie… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- [Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-i… Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ie… Joseph Salowey