Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

Scott:

Hi!  Thanks for the review!

The correct address is draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp.all@ietf.org. (.all, not
-all).  I’m including it in this reply.

BTW, yes the security considerations should also reference rfc4761.  That
comment had come up in another review and the authors should have it queued
up for the next version.

Alvaro.

On February 16, 2018 at 9:08:47 AM, Scott G. Kelly (scott@hyperthought.com)
wrote:

Resending due to bounce from draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-all@ietf.org

On Friday, February 16, 2018 6:06am, "Scott G. Kelly" <
scott@hyperthought.com> said:

> 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.
>
> The summary of the review is Ready with issues.
>
> From the last line of the abstract, this draft updates RFC 4761 by
defining new
> flags in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.
>
> I'm not expert in routing protocols, so I can't say for sure that the one
minor
> issue I'm calling out is the only one. The security considerations
section is very
> brief, saying only
>
> This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
> inherent in the existing [RFC4271].
>
> RFC4271 is the BGP4 RFC. I agree that those security considerations
apply, but as
> noted in the abstract, this draft updates RFC4761, and since that
document calls
> out additional security considerations, don't those also apply here?
Shouldn't
> this document's security considerations also reference RFC4761?
>
> --Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>