[Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I need a bit of help understanding how to read the Security Considerations text
– threats are identified but how they are mitigated seems implicit.  The text,
“In general the same types of attacks … However, the latter will be more
difficult to detect …”, alludes to a similar threat without a reference and
seems to suggest it will be worse in the deployed environment of this extension.

The next paragraph, “Existing security extensions … [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]
apply …” states that [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] also apply.  What does apply mean
here – should they be used?  Do they mitigate what’s described in the previous
paragraph?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.3.  Typo.  s/advertsied/advertised/