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

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 04 January 2012 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 47CA321F8682; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 03:10:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fuZcrF0wLgRt; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 03:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA20721F854D; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 03:10:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=2391; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1325675438; x=1326885038; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LwYi6jdv6s5BAAZyvazyGSt1peOjAtcpaH+NwSvMUog=; b=RiujoFTAlth8LdAM6qS/Qyxn2BIjoV8IHdDh3WRLrU9hCWr/ZzULcwBh 3kAlQuqIpX0qyNrwT+RxKSpkRX11ObtbG3w0PDT1g3aIaZb7T/gBAOFoE tr9H7dVA/5Wfn9WLDr7Xg8BS8LVO7Uz1cs9z6+J6oFSMEeh8mriwKOHQE 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjcFADEyBE+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDggWoJoI8gQWBcgEBAQQSAQIBIjMNARALGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBHp8cAYMuDwGaZYwPBJUEkjQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,455,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="62716186"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2012 11:10:16 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q04BAGfG015254; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:10:16 GMT
Received: from stbryant-mac2.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q04BAF5n021801; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:10:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4F043397.2090706@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:10:15 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability.all@tools.ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org
References: <4E9A7AC9.1000803@oracle.com> <4F0410AE.8050600@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F0410AE.8050600@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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 11:10:39 -0000

On 04/01/2012 08:41, Shawn Emery wrote:
> 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?
>
> Shawn.
> -- 
>
>
Shawn

Thank you for your review, and for picking up an inconsistency that we 
had all
missed. "ISIS" is well known, but technically it should be IS-IS.

There is some security text that is in previous work on this subject
that it is useful to reference that I have added in via an editor's note.

For everyone's benefit I append the editors notes for the document.

Though out the document please:
s/ISIS/IS-IS/
s/LoopFree/loop-free/

Then

s/Service Provider networks/Service Provider (SP) networks/

In section 1

Old
In this document, we analyze the applicability of LoopFree Alternates
in both core and access parts of Service Provider networks.
New
In this document, we analyze the applicability of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA)
[RFC5714][RFC5286] in both core and access parts of Service Provider (SP)
networks.
End

=====
In References add normative ref to RFC 5286

=====

In Section 8

Old
This document does not introduce any new security considerations.
New
The security considerations applicable to LFAs are described in
RFC5286. This document does not introduce any new security
considerations.
End

=====


- Stewart