[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13

Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp> Tue, 10 October 2017 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CB5134E3C; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 07:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-sec.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150764751351.13466.15119625109787574982@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 07:58:33 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/gZfqfX_cYUHxLS4rwj6kY3G9H0I>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 10 Oct 2017 14:58:34 -0000

Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi
Review result: Ready

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.

I would say this document is ready with nits, but the nits are very minor.

[comments that require chages to the current draft]
1. I guess the authors mix up "reply" and "replay" in Section 6.6. "Reply
attacks" could be "Replay attacks".

[comments that does not necessarily require changes to the current draft]
2. The security aspect of LISP is addressed not only in this draft but also in
RFC6830 and in RFC7835. If I understood correctly, LISP-SEC addressed a part of
the threats mentioned in RFC7835. Then, it would be nice if the authors could
clarify what types of further threats that are not mentioned in LISP-SEC still
exist by referring to RFC6830 and RFC7835.

3. DOS/DDoS was mentioned in the introduction section, but it was not discussed
in the later sections. It would be nice if the authors could address DoS/DDoS
issues as well.