[secdir] Early review of draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 08 May 2015 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 1707F1B2ABC for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 05:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 uIbbiP8LOLEe for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 05:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD4741B2AB9 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2015 05:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AF8A1800A76; Fri, 8 May 2015 14:24:12 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <554CAAE8.9090800@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 14:24:08 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt@tools.ietf.org" <draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_C5AmR0MPiJEtSjsZ1-CO3Wp3EY>
Subject: [secdir] Early review of draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt
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: Fri, 08 May 2015 12:24:16 -0000

Security Directorate,

Apologies if I'm sending this too wide!

The MPLS wg has a review team. The task of the review team is to
support the wg chair, in particular when we are considering a wg
adoption poll.

Before starting a wg adoption poll we run all documents through the
MPLS-RT review (you can find a typical invite to such a review below).

Just now we have draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt in MPLS-RT
review. We have enough reviewers accepting to do the review, but all
of them have flagged that they are not entirely comfortable reviwing
the document from a security perspective. Stephen have very graciously
offered to help if there are question.

I still would like to ask if it possible to find an expert reviewer
in the security directorate. Questions asked are the same as you find
in the invite below.

Please contact me if you are willing to review the document for us.

mpls wg co-chair

-----------example of mpls-rt review invite -----------------------

Dave, Mach, Lizhong and Kamran,

You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for 

Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own

Note to the reviewers: I understand that this document is very much
on the "security side of the house", however I will also reach out
to the Sec-Dir for a more security biased review.
This should not stop you from commenting on security aspects of the
draft, but if you feel like it I'm comfortable with a "normal MPLS-RT
review", responding to questions below.

Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it
useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational
networks), and is the document technically sound?  We are interested
in knowing whether the document is ready to be considered for WG
adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this point, but should be
a good start).

Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and
WG secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.

If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
*really* need to be resolved before adopting it as a working group
document, and what can wait until the document is a working group
document and the working group has the revision control.

Are you able to review this draft by May 17, 2015? Please respond in a
timely fashion.

Thanks, Loa
(as MPLS WG chair)


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64