Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10

["Tim Evens (tievens)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you so much for your review.  I have updated the doc per your suggestions.

"  The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this
   document.  Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require monitored
   routers to establish secure sessions with authorized and trusted
   monitoring stations.  It is also believed that this document does not
   add any features that require any additional security considerations."


On 3/29/21, 3:51 PM, "Chris Lonvick via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:


Reviewer: Chris Lonvick
Review result: Has Nits

Hello,

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 summary of the review is READY.

The authors state in the Security Considerations section that the same
considerations that are documented in Section 11 of RFC 7854 also apply to this
document. I see no reason to doubt that and I believe that is appropriate for
this document.

The second and third sentences of the Security Considerations section may need
to be reworked. Although I skimmed the rest of the document, these were the
only nits I could see.

For the second sentence, rather than:
Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require to establish sessions with
authorized and trusted monitoring devices. Perhaps, Implementations of this
protocol SHOULD require  +monitored routers+  to establish  +secure+  sessions
with authorized and trusted monitoring  -devices-+stations+. The term
"monitoring devices" is not used anywhere else in the document, and only once
in RFC 7854. On the other hand "monitoring stations" is used extensively in
both.

For the third sentence, rather than:
It is also believed that this document does not add any additional security
considerations. Perhaps, It is also believed that this document does not add
any  +features that require any+  additional security considerations.

Best regards,
Chris