Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-dcn-06

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review, Shawn.

> The security considerations section does exist and describes that DCN 
> messages are required to have adequate security mechanisms.  The section 
> doesn't describe what those mechanisms are, but should at least provide a 
> reference from other MPLS RFC/I-Ds that do.

I'm a little unclear what you are asking for here.
The draft defines a channel (i.e. a logical data link) down which any 
packet-based protocol could be run.
Are you suggesting that this draft should contain a reference to the 
security mechanisms for each protocol that might be run down the channel? 
That seems like an impossible task.

We could, I suppose, add text to note that "the MPLS data plane does not 
include any security mechanisms of its own, therefore it is important that 
protocols using the DCN apply their own security."

Cheers,
Adrian