[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13
Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 13 October 2019 22:25 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F0112006D; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring.all@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.105.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Message-ID: <157100555733.20750.5488529297693995498@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:25:57 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/4udcfE2ZM8u99xE9cwkRnFd8-pI>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 22:25:58 -0000
Reviewer: Joseph Salowey Review result: Has Issues 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 the document has issues with the security considerations section. The security consideration section is extremely light. It mainly contains text from RFC 7333. It seems that there should be more discussion of security as it relates to the different configurations and different cases. Do each of these cases have the same security properties and require the same types of security controls? Are the IPSEC recommendations mentioned in the security considerations of draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04 applicable for all the cases? Should these be pointed out in the security considerations section?
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dm… Joseph Salowey via Datatracker
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Joseph Salowey