[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731293A160A; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBhz8o5Qby3Y; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A6AB3A1607; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id m20so1480833eds.2; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5WPTr5qiEdqX75PRhfxfAsTIyiC0iu+BEnZzaEEpVCg=; b=GX/CIBzLIZdZVWdr758QqZW354tH73vmDee5M0UROnc2cic93zrpMN8LNM7Tt+Q1c5 xv3Gq7NKEx9e0vEET34HQ+UQs+DakO2UGMzWVxpfdlqmst5D0lBIbXIAiVJJcnAXEzlQ m7hCyK6gpuduFC6bBDqYkGnS/inKU2WUtQA+1KDZBI5IDyknwVcmI7pkTtwjwOxHh3o0 Bsa4VlLR7xKhXuyLqECx0JZLrwfMnaHCZDoU4AODTb2zdEwZrRBcgU9Xzh7an77KYf52 uF7ehi06IZWck184IW2arAQLh+1imBiaTu2KP4kx3fGCQSVHJjF+VNfb4qtuEoUhJ0/g ojcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5WPTr5qiEdqX75PRhfxfAsTIyiC0iu+BEnZzaEEpVCg=; b=FqggbSMzGu2RHQBin6zryggw0+Pq/zHwrfSnU+hi6cnBs/MwA+ZDtwb6jehvndZs9G UTv35GpMxjGc91krdakfK/ZcVfkcXnTm75RlnNeuWbS3pF1BD0ttc4t3QAl0ZLsRliKs NToYcbe6yKeUvCR2m35Oj2TzvckJ4RsTmDjzgvSqB6VHVMk8jAgioq86D94Sp1gkrEvV 8W/IJaq/4O4pdKDeb1LjG2QH9qW1SeGTCv9SgwopPxFq2YfaLXszy7POHhbQvF1GoBUz m+SBAWHkP2LsPZGM62v01PyyWlvnavKxuCLS5//QyO3wJhW4Y7UNfFnDeukJl+2aUKyY hdqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530aN0AnJM+FVzYBk3WHcY9iNjZk5ELKLNs9fhZJ9EO/Mf9kSPjY v2GHzieRaThYmVWCJhafmMHENXLYi7NQ0rLbo86qG9P63eY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5VfF5/1iitQF0JW2Xzyo2HWTBTXl3dLlOySHX7sNp6aOHQyBkqvEGyHmZOV30yhllmOzh7wnS1vB4uktG/xk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:28f:: with SMTP id l15mr6616843edv.233.1595816672618; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:24:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo6VKmiB92u2+oYo+uzLkKrdExE+Y_2cYjHO50qf1QhuJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5eac105ab630530"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/YFSHOH2NqwWm8i4JzaGi5ijF0NY>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 02:24:37 -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.



Summary: I have found no issues with the document.

This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4
NLRI or VPN-IPV4 NLRI with an IPv6 next hop address.

The document is fine.


Nit: I didn't quite understand a word in the acknowledgement section

"  The authors would like to thank Francois Le Faucheur and Eric Rosen

   for the edition and their work on [RFC5549
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549>]."

What do you mean by "edition"?  Do you perhaps mean "editing work"?

Would you still be properly acknowledging them if you removed the
words "the edition and", and made it simply "for their work

on RFC5549"?


Radia