[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.