[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06

Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 24 September 2020 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55083A124A; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip.all@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160097130665.26261.15986068503995393539@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:15:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/qa-4hzVr3DaOKCOMeCKSSb0gKh0>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:15:08 -0000

Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
Review result: Ready

(Sorry for the missed review deadline.)

Other than general doubts about "I'll only use this in one administrative
domain", the only specific thing that concerned me here was that
draft-ietf-detnet-security doesn't seem to include any analysis of detnet/UDP
(and indeed says that detnet runs over IP) and the security considerations
section here is purely by reference. Given that draft-ietf-detnet-security
seems to have done a reasonable job of analysis, it's a pity to not have that
for the detnet/UDP case. All that said, I don't have any concrete problems to
highlight with detnet/UDP, though of course I've not been thinking about this
as $dayjob, so there may be issues there.