[secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode-04

Melinda Shore via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 31 October 2022 00:08 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Melinda Shore via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <166717492803.30668.11613458057834717396@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 17:08:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/hCa05SYmdlQdN-n6QrEJ2B_MOoE>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode-04

Reviewer: Melinda Shore
Review result: Has Issues

This draft defines a subcode for the BFD "Cease" message, for "BFD Down."  The
document is succinct and clearly written, but the security considerations are a
bit too succinct, consisting only of the single sentence "This document
introduces no additional BGP security considerations."  That may well be true
(if, say, the subcode is strictly informative and the receiver does not change
its behavior on receipt of that subcode), but an additional sentence or two
explaining why that's true would be appreciated.  A nod to the security
considerations in RFC 5880 would probably be appropriate, as well as a mention
of whether or not the mechanisms defined in that document are mandatory to
implement.

[secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bf… Melinda Shore via Datatracker
Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-id… Jeffrey Haas