[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 12 October 2011 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 F15F321F853B; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Si4uqw+l1Zux; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABBB21F8531; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A925ABC047; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=RF8wb2ERhtP5qtmscy9AXbsm6m4O3mDztznxpPJc/AiD KZ476WtWHnKYtT6M5+NGex+5GgWi1AEE07OdZcHx/YmMFSqTgQwYTQ5TQBf3Nssk yeicuuWpEG+lud6VkTTkR/jvRclrYxRloqAKb9jkjhWtGVPX+bZraXevMub+WnA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=NOj7xCmfwlR95N6g4U8J6NU+c/8=; b=nc+R0YxPBZL Mbmrbciqys8TMFHVueouv0bezhg3cc+W+/vCD3iy/LzMTOFY6NFCWsKP+OYc32Lk v8ojCrYajxYi8d08sNxW/002HmE+xUZvlPY11mN/PlR5KdiMgBzX2XF1TPJmTCzC VMuS1JNuO974Wwffo6cmaVYwfxyTTDV0=
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74FCCBC040; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so493579gyh.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.31.131 with SMTP id a3mr51489826pbi.24.1318403127353; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.59.169 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:05:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOj5Y8waYhCpoiiYg0GrL3E5SvWAPkkxmhP+2RHhoDdzgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:05:31 -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 targets the informative (FYI) track and describes a
framework for applying GMPLS protocols to handle information about
link quality (my words) based on "Impairment Aware Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA)".  Given the document's intended status
and the fact that no protocols as such are specified, it would seem
that the sparse security considerations section should suffice, except
that it's not clear whether active attacks are of concern (the
security considerations section concenrs itself mostly with privacy
concerns).  A few words on the potential for active attacks would be
useful, particularly for the non-initiate.

The I-D is not properly formatted (e.g., the abstract is not on the
first page, and plenty of other formatting errors follow).  Assuming
that these errors are corrected and that the security considerations
section is updated as indicated above, I think this I-D should be
ready.

Nico
--