IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14

Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> Wed, 09 December 2020 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
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 380EA3A00D3; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:25:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 13vKVDfVJ09r; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADD53A00C4; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:25:53 -0800 (PST)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:15114.1238962797
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.75?logid-d2695525dd284714830add372e61a7fa (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 0074C2800CB; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:25:42 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 66040164@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.48]) by App0024 with ESMTP id d2695525dd284714830add372e61a7fa for d3e3e3@gmail.com; Wed Dec 9 10:25:43 2020
X-Transaction-ID: d2695525dd284714830add372e61a7fa
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.48
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
From: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
To: d3e3e3@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip.all@ietf.org
Cc: 'secdir' <secdir@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org
References: <CAF4+nEFFo+EwawOfEaS4mWnVzcokKOQw0Mt6qp240sMy9NKzow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFFo+EwawOfEaS4mWnVzcokKOQw0Mt6qp240sMy9NKzow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 10:25:40 +0800
Message-ID: <009501d6cdd2$98623ed0$c926bc70$@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0096_01D6CE15.A686B750"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIlk6kYgF4MaLToiNjvYXbC2YXmWalQfEyQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/0thWlYDMALHz0-pooj8I9GWNHAU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 02:25:57 -0000

Hi, Donald:

 

Thanks for your careful review.

I have updated the draft according to your suggestions, except one minor change for the name of the document. 

It seems “Path Computation Element (PCE) based Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Network”is more better?

 

I have uploaded the new version on the IETF repository.

Detail responses are inline below.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: d3e3e3@gmail.com <d3e3e3@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:58 PM
To: iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip.all@ietf.org
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>; last-call@ietf.org
Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14

 

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 with Issues.

 

Security:

This is a very high level Informational document about a general method of traffic engineering using multiple BGP sessions and PCE. The Security Considerations section is adequate except that I would recommend adding a reference for BGP security, perhaps to RFC 7454.

[WAJ] Done, thanks.

 

Other Issues:

The title of the document doesn't really make it clear what it is about and does not spell out some acronyms. I suggest the following:

Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP NetworkNetworks

[WAJ] Just add one word “based” to become “Path Computation Element (PCE) based Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Network”

 

Editorial:

There are a number of editorial/typo issues including the curious lack of any expansion or definition for the first three acronyms listed in Section 2 on Terminology and what appears to be a line sliced off the bottom of Figure 3. Also, I think a reference should be given where BGP Flowspec is mentioned in Section 7.1, presumably to the rfc5575bis draft. See attached for detailed change suggestions in MS Word with tracked changes and, alternatively, as a PDF thereof.

[WAJ] Done, thanks.

 

Thanks,

Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com <mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email