[secdir] draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04 SECDIR review

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 23 August 2012 20:36 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 3586E21F854C; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G8Y8-bNB1NCA; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DC221F8549; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so2150242iab.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Vcim0sPclo1Dc0qizp+AuElqSS3I1s4l9eA9K4Fz2cc=; b=J4g0Gm3epvYQBO51liUtugpi0ZPeL9AIdhYZlI2jHIfCrl5hQ9unNxUFTSKX/DEgIZ 0CbiKOHUym7K2xU4S34ddvMxnYL2bA8C4zibu0/DSW5J732cbz73TqiohlGaGIfqJW5u 1ypRJkFZ4sDdvgMDcKpq0yD7wK4IqYt7VSNJ4Xh09Di97RCChFizRxi9Sj7rIy6NL4s6 B7id+iFxxC1hN7oc+RAIAmN215dMOEDSaOX+HikyYfmGQECbZvhPjGi06ymqSTG2hJ4Q xyQCUYAYzASa0VZw8c1AkHIr/toy38wsvoWNQJjx7jaNgp/+/cu+BRHQSH9XSaJUxZ0l AyCg==
Received: by 10.42.95.10 with SMTP id d10mr2463230icn.30.1345754161189; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.15.6 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:35:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHHtTeC2T7BD--BRpQAigNtqRPro3JtSJK6YYzGfWTmEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04 SECDIR review
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: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:36:06 -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 WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

This Informational draft discusses the use of the Path Computation
Element (PCE) architecture to determining routes through multiple
domains with different administration. This uses hierarchical PCE
processes that are heavily dependent on the PCE Protocol.

The Security Consideration section of this draft is heavily dependent
on the Security Considerations in the PCE Protocol RFC 5440, which are
quite good, and also references Security Considerations in several
other RFCs including RFC 5327 for inter-AS path computation and Path
Keys in RFC 5520 as well as directly discussing aspects unique to or
particularly prominent in the area considered.

I believe that security aspects of the technology being discussed in
this informational draft are well covered, directly or by reference,
and have no changes to recommend.

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