[mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 17 February 2019 23:57 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01F2128D52; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:57:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155044786665.4047.16182077722084116649@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:57:46 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/uPdtmug2FBqdK1AU8YNdNcOir9E>
Subject: [mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:57:47 -0000
Reviewer: Paul Wouters Review result: Ready 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 While I'm not familiar with the Service Function Chaining (SFC) architecture and the Network Service Header (NSH), the Security Considerations in this document seem to be correct in pointing out that: This document simply defines one additional transport encapsulation. The NSH was specially constructed to be agnostic to its transport encapsulation. As as result, in general this additional encapsulation is no more or less secure than carrying the NSH in any other encapsulation.
- [mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls… Paul Wouters
- Re: [mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Andrew G. Malis