[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Fri, 31 December 2010 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34ECF28C0D7; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.387, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68-ZwEQulzLm; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A7228B56A; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so11022784iyi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:02:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=i+NUPRrzP/D3TvIKcutK29tD5tWjeOTVUXk/5P4syKs=; b=xL/QFUnSWPUUVl9B7Rbe7Wb3lCvkqdJh2KOOlP1ao0Ixk3VAADVlt1obfGwHZrlqrb +3l6uTt7fFPL5xywJrafQhn4Dg9VCiW/Iw7qUwBne/EmiGePsFPes8i86+eYpWF8fNj5 WM74iFQjfl16ayc8TkN/zkiJM+mMaVh/rLq6U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=u4tCiOJlQcbw9qIL4wEjmhbevSKjACersGRIT+anh0y4QpY+kxjsHACptQCxC8t4gf smcWze8pIiBL8WBhhBYv+iUIW52q4dGHgrDtyRiIUEnrdmQyNdyFGaT+m8frMK7Zf2ur GRcLh4yHOA2OxVN+zG1GVIEXcSav0mmrl4F1E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.149.194 with SMTP id u2mr17067958ibv.32.1293760967596; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.33.70 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:02:47 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=R6Fg-GOak7ychV_O0_RGO75yjLcrurna5xsXp@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Magnus_Nystr=F6m?= <magnusn@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:00:43 -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 document defines a new lambda (wavelength) label format for use
in GMPLS signaling and routing.

I have no particular security concerns with this document.

A few editorial comments:

- General: The document seems to be in need of a proof-read; there are
several examples where the wordings make the intent behind a sentence
unclear - I cite some of them below.

- Section 2: "The Label_Set object is made by only one sub channel
that must be same as the Upstream_Label object": Suggest changing to
something like (if I did not misunderstand the intent with this
sentence):  "The Label_set object shall contain a single sub-channel
that must be the same as the Upstream_Label object"
- Section 2, last paragraph is unclear and should preferably be
re-written for clarity.
- Section 3.1, third paragraph, unclear
- Sectoin 3.1, why state that n is a two's complement integer? Seems
simpler to state it is just an integer? (it does make sense to state
it in 3.2, however)

-- Magnus