Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-07

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.

These updates are included in the version just posted: https://datatracker.
ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-08


On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:29 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Steve Hanna
>
> Review result: Ready
>
>
>
> I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
>
>
>
> Overall, the proposal described in the document seems reasonable and
> clear. In light of the security measures provided by OSPFv2 and OPSFv3, I
> don’t foresee any additional security problems that would be caused by
> implementing this proposal.
>
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-07
>
> Reviewer: Steve Hanna
>
> Review Date: 2022-09-20
>
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-20
>
>
>
> Summary: Ready
>
>
>
> Major Concerns: None
>
> Minor Concerns: Just nits and comments
>
>
>
> Nits and comments:
>
>
>
> There is a typo on page 8:
>
>
>
> A router stops including the Reverse Metric TLV in its Hello packets
>
>    when it needs its neighbors to go back to using its own provisioned
>
>    metric values.
>
>
>
> Should be
>
>
>
>
>
> A router stops including the Reverse Metric TLV in its Hello packets
>
>    when it needs its neighbors to go back to using *their* own provisioned
>
>    metric values.
>
>
KT> Ack


>
>
> You might want to state explicitly that the values contained in the
> Reverse Metric field and the Reverse TE Metric field are always unsigned. I
> believe that is true but maybe somebody could imagine putting a signed
> integer there when the O bit is set.
>

KT> Ack

Thanks,
Ketan


>
>