[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04

Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com> Wed, 04 January 2012 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@oracle.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 07F6F21F86C0; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17xzkIFs9Nj5; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753A921F868A; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com []) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id q048fbuI016465 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:41:38 GMT
Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com []) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q048fZBd019095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:41:36 GMT
Received: from abhmt110.oracle.com (abhmt110.oracle.com []) by acsmt358.oracle.com ( with ESMTP id q048fYQN022725; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 02:41:35 -0600
Received: from [] (/ by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:41:34 -0800
Message-ID: <4F0410AE.8050600@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:41:18 -0700
From: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111202 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: secdir@ietf.org
References: <4E9A7AC9.1000803@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E9A7AC9.1000803@oracle.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4E9A7AC9.1000803@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com []
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4F0410C3.002B,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
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: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:41:41 -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.

This informational draft describes optimizations for Loop-Free Alternates (LFA)
in Service Provider (SP) networks.

The security considerations section does exist and states that there is
no new security considerations, which I believe to be the case.

General comments:

Not being a routing expert this was slow to read (e.g. not knowing some of the
unexpanded abbreviations and terminology).  As a result, the editorial comments are just
from the Abstract and Introduction sections.

Editorial comments:

s/applicability of LoopFree Alternates/applicability of LoopFree Alternates (LFA)/
s/Service Provider networks/Service Provider (SP) networks/
I haven't looked the common abbreviations list, but should ISIS, et. al. be expanded?