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

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 04 January 2012 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CA321F8682; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 03:10:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.676
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fuZcrF0wLgRt; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 03:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA20721F854D; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 03:10:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,455,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="62716186"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2012 11:10:16 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q04BAGfG015254; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:10:16 GMT
Received: from stbryant-mac2.local (localhost []) by (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q04BAF5n021801; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:10:15 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:10:15 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <>
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 <>,,,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.
> -- 

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

In section 1

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

In References add normative ref to RFC 5286


In Section 8

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


- Stewart