[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-10

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Sun, 10 December 2017 21:32 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: trill@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication.all@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151294155757.21877.6840749517796253347@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:32:37 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/GIDCUtJyVNd2yi8EF_YG5lfrGw0>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-10

Reviewer: Joseph Salowey
Review result: Has Issues

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.

Document is ready with issues.

I think the document has appropriate security considerations.

One issue I see in the document is that in the intro it states:
"The basic idea is that all ingress RBridges send BUM traffic to a centralized
node, which SHOULD be a distribution tree root, using unicast TRILL 
encapsulation." In section 3 it states : "The centralized node MUST be a
distribution tree root."

The MUST and SHOULD seem to be at odds here.

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-tr… Joseph Salowey
Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Donald Eastlake