[secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-15

Samuel Weiler via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 05 October 2021 20:07 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Samuel Weiler via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <163346447545.9898.7820598060509599586@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 13:07:55 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-woIjJPPs5F2uEPsefOx6-flEWY>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-single-nickname-15

Reviewer: Samuel Weiler
Review result: Not Ready

I'm not satisfied with the weak anti-spoofing protections of TRILL, but I don't
see this making things worse.

I have what I hope is a naive question: since this proposes to label level 1
areas by the set of RBs that connect them to the level 2, expanding on Section
6 (One Border RBridge Connects Multiple Areas), what happens when the set of
RBs connecting to multiple areas is the same, such that all of those areas
would then get the same name, under this scheme?   (I'm hoping this works, and
I'm just not sorting out the details, but I'm making sure...)

[secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tri… Samuel Weiler via Datatracker
Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf… Donald Eastlake