[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-05.txt

Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com> Fri, 04 September 2009 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <charliek@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFC53A68D0; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRvGFyRUexPv; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail1.microsoft.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF0A3A69BF; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ( by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:19 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC119.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([]) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:51:19 -0700
From: Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "jpv@cisco.com" <jpv@cisco.com>, "swallow@cisco.com" <swallow@cisco.com>, "ina@juniper.net" <ina@juniper.net>, "loa@pi.nu" <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-05.txt
Thread-Index: AcotoXN3v+1I0FP3SHuZTBolqUexgA==
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:51:18 +0000
Message-ID: <D80EDFF2AD83E648BD1164257B9B09121C413C@TK5EX14MBXC119.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D80EDFF2AD83E648BD1164257B9B09121C413CTK5EX14MBXC119red_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-05.txt
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, 04 Sep 2009 20:51:09 -0000

I am reviewing 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. Feel free to forward to any appropriate forum.

This document specifies a relatively minor clarification to RFC 3209, and as far as I can tell that clarification has no security consequences (unless you call non-interoperability because of different interpretations of the spec a security issue).

Typos (maybe):

In sections 2.1 and 2.1, I found 2 "must"s, 2 "must not"s, 2 "should"s, and one "may" that I believe should have been all caps per RFC 2119. I've never been very good at that distinction, however, so the authors MIGHT have it right ;-)