Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Sat, 02 January 2021 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 9CBBA3A0C7E; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 09:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SzBIQBBOCGSP; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 09:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (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 EA8C03A0C7C; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 09:21:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id 81so21174019ioc.13; Sat, 02 Jan 2021 09:21:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fJyrTUbovHzFlHqR5uVtc8KigirEArbi4I+s/IXJBog=; b=P9CDjdRXq3S1Tjw1qMPD2wZMZG7UqDYznPEsXpRRbgBTiyDhRgHwP1t1E4oREzBaml sXAMLK7GSJN4u56nhb5lc7FaxeAXhZj1BaxObVPHeaIzBEclDtQjbL0+nVAxzMh0ps57 EcQXPFkrJYP/6Ujo8BOXiOw2FfFpA9pMzYpsN4zEF1Ubcu3TVr3V7KeDcBHR1rqI72oG 5FtnZTahlwWfApub0ABLfE7UH0yJTW/6QmnJ2C7SYhm8iUBO4JMwr+GFLDA78eyDVUAM /H02YOg/6xPJANm+cgaMSAYyUT6ui8QQwCmFxWshir1WCA00Q2NxnYOwr44P0PS4qdmL eYAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fJyrTUbovHzFlHqR5uVtc8KigirEArbi4I+s/IXJBog=; b=IIUvqDpbY9tzag17KXmu9ymh8axKL8VV/se1LUVFEdC4MTfWGklrDL685Lcj02JYOF mNXI34/kOjzq36UpbQdAunWh4cFozzp7JZWKAXu2B6ypd23mUtoyTNwyzqjnGH14AU7m xvIQjSuHjfsA5X75LSSgxGorx+HQ/AFnK+HGAguKraRinC4rl1e0R3k6qfoO2gantZw2 bI1r98Ay1kI+d2L5ud+L2anPJTqCS89fxHVi25nariOEX2gQei1j5ywsjADZKRp3FKWe oaRRtnNON+GgXXwrgwxqZucueLRhz5ndH0hx9f/o7gJDwZ5ZgAJMtzVASEfax+Am8Da2 nXXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oHbYiozI44QyySnPoGIvBg9wDQ1IQXy/2IKbCa8Pp18tSY0NN +WstFqz0OKlvBGqhRUZ9hX/J1x58swiu/VZg2wTxPATdQ5U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxiZ9yV6EjvVkzZDEfk3sA9MqE0ue2JXNtNEdtiSDq+Y5efaT8G89FNJDFFBRsRWwpujRoPvQdZotBrBXoLJI8=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:2a4f:: with SMTP id w76mr55498291jaw.50.1609608117085; Sat, 02 Jan 2021 09:21:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF4+nEFFo+EwawOfEaS4mWnVzcokKOQw0Mt6qp240sMy9NKzow@mail.gmail.com> <009501d6cdd2$98623ed0$c926bc70$@chinatelecom.cn>
In-Reply-To: <009501d6cdd2$98623ed0$c926bc70$@chinatelecom.cn>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 12:21:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFoj2xWUiB+1eg5orb9zqmeLfmGEXDvh5oDqu=9im7g=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip.all@ietf.org, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/xT4BuVri76LsIVy9UBkiQPS4hw4>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 17:22:04 -0000

Hi,

My apologies for slow response.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:26 PM Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi, Donald:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your careful review.
>
> I have updated the draft according to your suggestions, except one minor change for the name of the document.
>
> It seems “Path Computation Element (PCE) based Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Network”is more better?

Thanks for making the changes. I agree that adding the word "based" to
the title is an improvement.

Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
> I have uploaded the new version on the IETF repository.
>
> Detail responses are inline below.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> From: d3e3e3@gmail.com <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:58 PM
> To: iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip.all@ietf.org
> Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>; last-call@ietf.org
> Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14
>
>
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> The summary of the review is Ready with Issues.
>
>
>
> Security:
>
> This is a very high level Informational document about a general method of traffic engineering using multiple BGP sessions and PCE. The Security Considerations section is adequate except that I would recommend adding a reference for BGP security, perhaps to RFC 7454.
>
> [WAJ] Done, thanks.
>
>
>
> Other Issues:
>
> The title of the document doesn't really make it clear what it is about and does not spell out some acronyms. I suggest the following:
>
> Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP NetworkNetworks
>
> [WAJ] Just add one word “based” to become “Path Computation Element (PCE) based Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Network”
>
>
>
> Editorial:
>
> There are a number of editorial/typo issues including the curious lack of any expansion or definition for the first three acronyms listed in Section 2 on Terminology and what appears to be a line sliced off the bottom of Figure 3. Also, I think a reference should be given where BGP Flowspec is mentioned in Section 7.1, presumably to the rfc5575bis draft. See attached for detailed change suggestions in MS Word with tracked changes and, alternatively, as a PDF thereof.
>
> [WAJ] Done, thanks.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com