[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Tue, 01 September 2015 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
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 384D31A019B; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 d7_ikcEl_paa; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E8721A01D8; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BXA29135; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:10:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEML429-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:10:54 +0100
Received: from szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com ([]) by SZXEML429-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:09:56 +0800
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08
Thread-Index: AQHQ5L/gEot3P+eKLk6oIdN2iw08Qg==
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:09:55 +0000
Message-ID: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A818DAD4F1@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CADajj4bzDNqCzaJSjviVZm1nk8CrbUopzj0PrNNOUcK9SNG1ZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADajj4bzDNqCzaJSjviVZm1nk8CrbUopzj0PrNNOUcK9SNG1ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A818DAD4F1szxeml557mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/armnrfe9XH6krX--k-Hgb3Ydmxg>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08
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: <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: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:11:02 -0000

Dear all,

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.

The document seems ready to go. I only found these minor nits:

The title of this draft indicates mib for MPLS-TP OAM ID but in the body MPLS is used mostly and sometimes MPLS-TP appears, for example, both MPLS tunnels and MPLS-TP tunnels are mentioned. I'm not sure if they can be used interchangeable. Besides, I notice that the names for the objects all start with "mplsoamidxxx", which seems to address mib for MPLS OAM ID. Then it is not aligned with the title of this draft. A bit confused. Could the authors provide any clarification on this? A general suggestion is to make alignment throughout the document, including the title of the draft.

* Abstract:

> it describes Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM)
> identifiers related managed objects for Multiprotocol Label Switching
> (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile (TP).

I find this sentence hard to parse. Maybe s/related managed objects/related to managed objects/ ?

* Section 1, page 3:
> MPLS LSP(Label

There's a missing space.

* Section 5.1, page 4:

> The mplsOamIdMegTable is used to manage one or more Maintenance
> Entities (MEs) that belongs


* Section 6, copy&paste mistake

-- Source MEP id is derived from the IP compatible MPLS LSP
       mplsOamIdMeSinkMepIndex           = 0,

The description in the note should be sink MEP. There is already another line to describe source MEP.

* Page 15:


This is the first and only instance of BFD. Please expand. (and maybe reference RFC5880)?

* Page 17:

"p2p" and "P2P" first used here. should probably be expanded.

Thank you,