[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-03

Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> Thu, 04 October 2012 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C5321F85B4; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4QAtFlvuQTe; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B4021F85A0; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=635; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349374594; x=1350584194; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=7thw8qGTB4/SirqAaK2pB8/KjCKD/CZA0q8dlIPiTe0=; b=UN3goLn22QGMzQ/5owGWNRYnuBSy8riDVkKN85IRb88duY+qN9I0ODAr VkgIjiH31b6c8Gvw4DV90gK9sVLsz96MiIF3h8bh4sYZktIkt7GAheFNX +vGL4qjK3X+9O9pFIkglQzkuNd1bzhdMWY6F+gxQSLvSUGO2lsAPdfUOc A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwEAEXSbVCrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABFvwyBCII5ASc/gT4BNIdiAZggoBaQe2ADiFiNEY5DgWmDDQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,537,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="60451682"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2012 18:16:34 +0000
Received: from dhcp-128-107-151-50.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-151-50.cisco.com []) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q94IGYHY003633; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:16:34 GMT
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:16:35 -0700
Message-Id: <B729D59F-BD96-4BC0-B7AC-6A1E90515BDC@cisco.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-ldpc-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:16:35 -0000

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.

This document describes a particular FEC scheme that fits within the FECFRAME framework. It has a well thought through security considerations section, and in all cases points to the security considerations in RFC 6363 for mitigation. This is appropriate and sufficient.