[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09.txt

<kathleen.moriarty@emc.com> Sat, 17 March 2012 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2557E21F864C; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.017
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.582, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dgv309zeW8A8; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6150821F864A; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com []) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q2HJ3Ifr009012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:03:19 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com []) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:03:04 -0400
Received: from mxhub18.corp.emc.com (mxhub18.corp.emc.com []) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q2HJ335q030680; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:03:03 -0400
Received: from mx06a.corp.emc.com ([]) by mxhub18.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:03:02 -0400
From: <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth.all@tools.ietf.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:03:01 -0400
Thread-Topic: sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0EcJNm6pQrUct0Q6qImOcFcoan6A==
Message-ID: <AE31510960917D478171C79369B660FA0E31E2A656@MX06A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com, sporetsky@allot.com, svapiwal@cisco.com, jkarthik@cisco.com, srao@du.edu, rajiv.papneja@huawei.com
Subject: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:03:33 -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.  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 draft is ready for publication.

I do not see any security concerns raised by this draft.  The draft specifies benchmarking methods including report formats and metrics to consistently benchmark MPLS protection mechanisms.  The draft does not specify the protection mechanisms.  The security considerations section limits the recommended tests to closed environments, further limiting any possible security concerns.

Best regards,