[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-04

"ietfdbh" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Thu, 27 March 2014 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BEB1A071A for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.111
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id evPsAoIXoKFm for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E686C1A06C1 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id icDn1n0011YDfWL5BeaHMP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:34:17 +0000
Received: from JV6RVH1 ([]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ieaH1n00R2yZEBF3geaH4c; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:34:17 +0000
From: ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:34:02 -0400
Message-ID: <018e01cf49c9$99a2a120$cce7e360$@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac9JxVzucOfxmxC2RyKubfXNixV2gA==
Content-Language: en-us
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1395930857; bh=l4VzVqXh/2WeB0Apmgcet79533vSXivRMxd8fphAEVQ=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=s769DnLayzF1Z2+IL9QCF86XVTYumlcYepFa51APssVORXcRFGLwAJfrWEvbygqh5 j5fJbzJ21yaD+ygCHPxkyOixAzFtu5KHtB4vz6FHtOu+4nHYrbSLUvmb2OEdnal3cA 1yQpv2TJ7Mjto97qUiJtH5G3gxFbTbjYt6IAb6bmmMB9EhW7gwKmyWVOw63CsF+L6i JBMKDXig9JFyhQVkWAVZe3v6heOr1mxUk3rdI0bCSs3YBNe2VmxmPhHstBCuZZEVfc 6tpehpFYYS+rjYp36FfV0XtmQGz11jM5AfVTt9MfPLSMawFtghkw8N7mCE/1wkDXSH spAFWNXGXKR7Q==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TnmzcjCFKWj6nWhuzRCwLbDU_oA
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:34:21 -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 reserves the highest-valued 32-bit AS number for an unknown
future use.
>From a security standpoint, since it says don't use it, and doesn't say what
it will be used for in the future, it creates no new security issues. When a
special use is standardized for this AS number, then associated security
risk presumably will be documented.
The document tells operators not to use this reserved value, but tells
implementers they should not consider its use to be a protocol error.
This is equivalent to having a reserved bit in a message format, but this
relates to an IANA registration so needs separate documentation.

I'm a bit surprised the document has an intended status of Informational,
but is being requested in the shepherd writeup to be published as PS or BCP.
Reviewers might assume this only requires the level of review associated
with an Informational doc rather than PS or BCP.

The document is well-written and ready to advance.

David Harrington