[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-12

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 19 March 2019 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFA71311B4; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuEMGqh1X-et; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329C21311AC; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id v4so100228ioj.5; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MydL6D3yzTpa1+aIR1EzPW+E9u6Ah1H//1qFHiqkR0I=; b=I4jkZBODwDiBpkL4gEN14tW3bTvMdUfYL2vE2zfmjRhaHdHt6IJTH7mFjF65+PgD8w jLsk+g5np2Nn1R4rRBu/6kP3FghMf/Jv15VWVbZzqu+ZIqbUfwfVXTTYyZrJYJgqn8pi Kzo03hGmTPuWO67UTILpwNpYJAx2vPzyKBwy2HD0ANkrl6YOz164K85xj27Lgm4AoFW8 /BSmBxnI45Ge9iGUEFwDUxQJ0B7oBIOr8IhdJ/EjPtHpiMVVHB0zZKGlk44piDgXvXbn phmvZVdXDAFJ51EwrOp14g2HEVz5A7zLhOncVMKe2ST+uOxVou8g4TZ//3pJ1SOGnxJv ktVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MydL6D3yzTpa1+aIR1EzPW+E9u6Ah1H//1qFHiqkR0I=; b=i6QeqWXF4tYD1fPhASQ8Leh5zxkcXvz6UsxXf0OgA2izF+NUeKx8qYrS+OrdsWENyy VwP63cffnCLK9VbkUelaBuZB4Toq+5AT5UB4Lym9JyI1IgDXxdtF5/K+ETF8v4S7D3+Q iprBrm5rc1Hx9e2AduWnKeVLQwKJOPpRoVabTOo6D1AXYsuW8sPHRbFx5imJKLceZ6qZ nKEfU8s/+ChrqrKRe9Bpn0ef3OXChx4dDW8S0YOiBFpF4vO//YoiyR6s6juPGsOm28mJ laDr/sDxiCRIJI1kqGEuqHlG4g0eIgwiloyszO/qvE3z4BBfG09O6H+RQCfc75oqeMMI kbCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7mj5LxyWRfUPXI6flkfdI1eTVD5VjhiQKAN6N8z0EIpUVb/Zt 63ZjptkDtiOUDqYMd++6a+bqqvfa8Tic2n6JNHQwr7e6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzMcNbaUNcxVl5BLerpdc0qHhGIYp+oQSPADl7l8OCs6HHDH1QlxK0ILx6DVFd6N4e5pKgaIuSLp9LzzzWWa5c=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8f04:: with SMTP id c4mr2991476iok.131.1553031544225; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:38:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEF+k8uv63+bw6_ERuK32NakynGQh14rY1WLLh_FxZAx=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp.all@ietf.org
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-rG2hbbJKDTKAw9_RhV8LFviBok>
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-12
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:39:07 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready.

Although the Security Considerations section is fairly short, it has
references to a number of relevant earlier RFCs that have quite
extensive Security Considerations sections. Furthermore PCEP was
previous extended to cover P2MP Traffic Engineered Label Switched
Paths and separately extended to be stateful. This draft's addition of
support for stateful P2MP TE LSPs is not that big of a change in
Security Considerations from those in the earlier RFCs.

Editorial

Section 3.2, Page 5, "are same as" -> "are the same as"

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com