[secdir] SECDIR review of drat-farrel-sfc-convent-05

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 12 February 2018 00:54 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 F0800126E64; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 2Mn1i0QChQil; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22f.google.com (mail-ot0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22f]) (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 84D3D12025C; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q9so12593415oti.0; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:54:23 -0800 (PST)
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=/jzDWqOlzyGxzbyFWamQBdOYBrGBDFx/HG9ekiCe5+M=; b=Q2kIdY6NU8m37PgXfi+cq4zgVh3q72M8L34b2V4KtGB0aRYnqq0xYa7r1XNdbjUkRm rk61T0cBjEAk1mhrlw2dqVCrPy16SHdeFgDCmqHBmMQlNzVak4F2t1eUn7aYqkwbFxjA kSsiVS2Fc6mrGW2wC2sNCwJyZ9r0md8DHclMlvaQNgtF9dJgfN4CN64QJnu7wr+1zK3Y KdDBA4uvyzyP9rDBaXVj+us9Bq6euJcdYqkLfkfROOOSfIP4p8lho6lGVtooyJsDyfTK 5zmnyLZFhA2zY4x5gD0oOgQrto5u/r62BboAhVEBGHLTTV93Ixh36ld75Sm99rQ21mTj weug==
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=/jzDWqOlzyGxzbyFWamQBdOYBrGBDFx/HG9ekiCe5+M=; b=VY50nODhos7CddinrD0enEnKKXWXWcQxoHZ4mqtkqsdvI4MIE+t9kfjPxuee0S2cCx 2kLAy3/96O6hOS7MLXc4VfAGB2poILONAt5P1WiILlf5gh+t0HDBa8XL333nbZSUHnVI yatd84F1XIMCR7J5cIUiXqZXOQip7joRjcqDdM8RkAaQqQN6g7/SjVgIRP5hH/6ZIJYt HzafpGUg817o3+m8vedCFeUNY1OsVAG3AV7778A+z4OilmONXg8NVn7Og4UMqIkLulvt ugx8gOo2SOOHyiM9opfSZx2cMs15jy3+aaxsleVNU6TG48ygSkPrSb44Qv4gK82AqpU8 jVUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCueqmr0F0T/2llu8R0c6lXytIZ8iGscrbxf0e0sn2IS1pJszdH yi8Hyh2LRIyO4OHAuU17S4qJ2Hbzw8W+iK7nKSr27zug
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2244TByw7zQZ8jhTcZRxRrae3oF0KCE39BfXbfByEpuFHAjB6RcKSQtCBmEyK3bIM09c0LlzIzI521zzk2jBYTA=
X-Received: by 10.157.17.171 with SMTP id v40mr7952791otf.287.1518396862461; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:54:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.168.67.205 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:54:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:54:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGRY4DK7moQHE9QCVvoG7oGojEDggpiUGk2LmJSjaui_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-farrel-sfc-convent.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1914449d7d4f0564f95191"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/04dycWPP8-arPWaQmjRtv7lES5M>
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of drat-farrel-sfc-convent-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:54:25 -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 others should treat these comments just like any
other late last call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready.

This document specifies a new "None" value for the Next Hop Protocol field
of the NSH header and places some implementation conditions on its use. It
lists some use case types for such packets, which would have NSH meta data
but no following protocol data, but does not fully specify any particular
use.

The Security Considerations section in conjunction with the implementation
conditions in the document seems more than adequate for the mere additional
of this field value. Additional Security Considerations will be required in
future documents specifying particular uses of this field value.

Draft references should be updated when they have issued as RFCs but I'm
sure the RFC Editor will handle this.

My apologies that this review is late.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com