[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08

Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com> Sun, 04 March 2018 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921FF126C19 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:38:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L4HWV7lCzgRr for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:38:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A04CE1241F5 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id h127so17782909lfg.12 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Mar 2018 23:38:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=iAYnp2r96eaSChzxDjb7Pma+w49XSloDYdyWmKGx9h8=; b=e5YiAlBNJTeeRxlbcg3OXhsDuioKLRmh9ykg0DNH/zIqPnkq4kJnYnXHeKji+dPNwB 8Cc2tEN0GYmjYocIEPP1AcFA4A01vnXff7fqGxIrCoi4YJlTEtrAhXubBjWzk9mLYV5w K5wLWzmTWZ8Z/TQPhfUDjmdJH+KTsHoMPiKiaEU6a/XXmH74f+CiJpSZm9N+ww78ZkQu 8mZdWILCBepb7BAvzh0XhzXVgVGwgmRmUCAXV1OuU9BdSSpoLQc3KpbbfMNPWUAFP3SI 5xP2vs7k8lbEJtxyySfdN0PUsJo8myRKv3UOrErxLkV2nF2ExWQ4xIRRBA9qWf4eZkGg DGcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=iAYnp2r96eaSChzxDjb7Pma+w49XSloDYdyWmKGx9h8=; b=sE/4rFVmoyqgoWBLh0ROTLTMa8HeU9cwGOKLXyVPrWKE3f8mFN+iBzABr0/Gvl8Otk n+PWCDdv1gVWWmPrMnN4su/sIBT7wxYS4dIFDx0pPrrltlNnOmXl3erbs2D6qbRzZs3e KU7MNzuUaT/F7aFJu/CgjEoR1PIOxHgSjHyF/r98q4h1T/hUop1SuRSuoIAU1lEdEfic 30B5GCJD5IPa32/z2JNlXSZkf0J6+hY4DtzBDGjIbampdf8KZ1NTJWXgg+dI61+Lg61T 4PF4USKP03yGHmeVx2/3lGehkIrTy80IIw4YfBEGb7sQZ8iMh8Fdk3tcowZsXOxPuzMh QqTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FKwY8Ks8wIlTmvDzcAeFcYSawoHTGYzTVDX7TdCxUuxc4vvBVc fQ4SQIy867nsfoM+WSfax02teQsgouU1QP6L4fJNDnmq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv2IeVT1ReO/CmMXwaPUeCtFkXAPN5qYMbOCaXQY93Y3QXCntDRky2JdS0wYOVfVmA/SG799HySDrXX6AZxezY=
X-Received: by 10.25.163.85 with SMTP id m82mr7100736lfe.54.1520149096708; Sat, 03 Mar 2018 23:38:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.113.7 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:38:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 00:38:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChzXmZ5O1m6nm69MwhaB6X_CzwpF-6Q+rbTYO8CRgcYkBV7cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11402f52ea421d0566914a0a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ppSnKuebihyQvumHcSek9yYYa0Y>
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:38:21 -0000

Reviewer: Shawn M Emery
Review result: Ready with nits

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 draft specifies an extension to the Path Computation Element
communication
Protocol (PCEP) that allows for different path setup methods for a given
session.

The security considerations section does exist and defers security aspects
related to this draft to RFC 5440 and 8281.  I agree with this assertion.
I believe
that the base specifications cover the security concerns and ways to
mitigate
sufficiently for this protocol.  It was also good to see that PCEP is
developing
security as a forethought [RFC 8253].

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

s/A Path Computation Element can/A Path Computation Element (PCE) can/

s/extension to PCEP/extension to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP)/

s/be able take control/be able to take control/


Shawn.
--