[secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-07
Corey Bonnell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 01 April 2025 17:43 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.8.216] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF6715FA6F4; Tue, 1 Apr 2025 10:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Corey Bonnell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.37.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <174352941824.2400981.12168934690121725088@dt-datatracker-5b9b68c5b6-zxk6z>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 10:43:38 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: EAALMD6CHWVWEAUHM66PL2MYIGVYOCA6
X-Message-ID-Hash: EAALMD6CHWVWEAUHM66PL2MYIGVYOCA6
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-secdir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Corey Bonnell <corey.bonnell@digicert.com>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-07
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/lSNkZk5uL2lgYlycRcI6UikuKgw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:secdir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secdir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secdir-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Corey Bonnell Review result: Has Nits Typos in Section 4: s/new mechanism/new mechanisms/ s/scalable solution/scalable solutions/ General comment: Although it does not appear that this document introduces any additional security considerations, I believe the security considerations for BGP-LS itself are applicable. The Security Considerations section should state that for clarity (preferably with references to the relevant RFCs).
- [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bg… Corey Bonnell via Datatracker
- [secdir] Re: [Idr] Secdir early review of draft-i… Chongfeng Xie