[mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-08

Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 13 December 2024 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.8.168] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B97C1D4A8F; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:20:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.30.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <173409241711.58956.13803285387467547113@dt-datatracker-59cd88ccf4-xxptp>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:20:17 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: PURCSYDBHUP6RZBFNGCRL45CTWP64PFR
X-Message-ID-Hash: PURCSYDBHUP6RZBFNGCRL45CTWP64PFR
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-08
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/lxOEcJTEUNdR5QCRrpBOk7UZXG4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mpls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mpls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Chris Lonvick
Review result: Ready

Hello,

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 summary of the review is Ready.

The document is understandable and well written. I found no nits.

Best regards,
Chris