[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute
Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com> Thu, 11 December 2008 15:21 UTC
Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secdir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DBF3A68AA; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:21:28 -0800 (PST)
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 11EF13A67D9; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:21:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 NJbVWVulrgH6; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boole.openldap.org (boole.openldap.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:ba:2e0:18ff:fe02:efec]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75043A689F; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (75-141-233-128.dhcp.nv.charter.com [75.141.233.128] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by boole.openldap.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBBFL0tE026829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:21:05 GMT (envelope-from Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com)
Message-Id: <C8C64AAA-1702-46C5-8C84-A1AAD442F8B2@Isode.com>
From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, dward@cisco.com, alain_durand@cable.comcast.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:21:00 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: hbrahim@nortel.com, yakov@juniper.com, dwfedyk@nortel.com, softwires@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: secdir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@ietf.org
I have reviewed this document (-03) 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 I-D defines a new BGP attribute to carry traffic engineering information. While it seems true that the introduction of this attribute doesn't change the underlying security issues of BGP, it might be appropriate to provide a reference to where BGP security considerations are discussed. That is, suggest adding: "BGP security considerations are discussed in RFC 4271". And something like "Traffic Engineering security considerations are discussed in RFC XXXX" would also be useful. Regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ secdir mailing list secdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-softwire-bgp… Kurt Zeilenga