IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Tue, 16 October 2018 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.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 ED978130E37; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 AAN7aGu1Oeqw; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF327130E3D; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4B077F57716D0; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:58:35 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:58:37 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.88]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.30]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:58:34 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Adam Montville <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07
Thread-Index: AQHUXZQy1K7cA/a5/kq8yIgEBcJOpKUiWWcQ
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:58:33 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854136918C4@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <153884440779.19283.3433013141521591146@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153884440779.19283.3433013141521591146@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.246.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/e_9qnBxrcuYAdX0GTfIPP072VjQ>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:58:43 -0000

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your review.  

Your suggestion has been incorporated in 08 version posted   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-08 .
--
Uma C. (On behalf of co-authors)


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Montville [mailto:adam.w.montville@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 9:47 AM
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07

Reviewer: Adam Montville
Review result: Ready

This draft does not seem to introduce any security considerations beyond what has already been treated in RFC5286, provided the last claim in the security considerations of RFC5286 still hold (label information is to neighbors with a trusted LDP session).

One suggestion I have is to rewrite the last sentence of the security considerations of this draft. At present that sentence ends up with, "...this does not introduce any new security issues *other than* as noted in the LFA base specification..." (emphasis added), which seems to suggest that the existing RFC has somehow introduced a new security issue to this draft.

Perhaps something like, "This document does not change any of the discussed protocol specifications [insert list here], and the security considerations of the LFA base specification [RFC5286] therefore continue to apply." Or something like that.

Kind regards,

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email