[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-14

Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 May 2024 17:10 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 463E1C1840F8; Wed, 15 May 2024 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.11.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171579303227.9312.12016625306842233074@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 10:10:32 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: V4DWXHTOVOGQRXX5LECIZAE7OPIK56PR
X-Message-ID-Hash: V4DWXHTOVOGQRXX5LECIZAE7OPIK56PR
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-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-14
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/sAQUH8G5o8FDfieyTdC837b1vlU>
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: Chris Lonvick
Review result: Ready

Hi,

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.

The summary of the review is Ready.

The day job has me going and I wasn't able to spend as much time with this that
I would have preferred. However, I found it to be understandable and well
thought-out.

I would like the Security Considerations section to include a more direct
reference to RFC 8029 rather than just saying an implementation should have
filter policies. Perhaps add the same paragraph that is used in the Security
Considerations of RFC 8287 as a new paragraph. Also, I think that the reference
to MACsec should use a RECOMMENDED rather than a "suggested".

I did see some nits in the document. Unfortunately, I didn't record them. I can
point out the last sentence of the Security Considerations section needs some
work. It currently has, "the network devices MUST have mechanisms to prevent of
Denial-of-service attacks" Either delete the "of" or change it to "for the
prevention of".

Best regards,
Chris