[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06

Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> Wed, 21 October 2009 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C31A3A69A4; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANlqULAlVZa1; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f183.google.com (mail-yw0-f183.google.com [209.85.211.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5253A67F5; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywh13 with SMTP id 13so9706598ywh.29 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Cf5pPcSO+eIXP5LrsniInSaqgZ/Q0GTF72tJV1dpAtY=; b=u3akFxBRcQ2AvSlnHaTR2EInBRH8JoZ05qcgV3J24rIBUnsZQk8PisKtYDBa8ZUsZp L/dwDJotvKmwOpuYVuDmfrcRGc7uACqH2WavHjayF0j125GW+MMOsenLkOOwMxnBvcAX alhfszU4RZirYgvBEVAu0GNKv6Sl/AJvanatg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; b=uvvlkk43PtUw1ZVhnVp2QWcORKa2semwIrUSa8moguXK8zeDzCykKYPbNxR+3+Nf+7 YU9IdcNuAHL/6a9O7d614hdcDjTXzJY0kEaaXqmCPipdBAZeVEKtF4wBfkWQWR6Nv7I2 g2PkfTVFqnQjgl7NF4j4iKmUGRGsxctQYWvpA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.20.15 with SMTP id x15mr13760569ybi.312.1256153575992; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:32:55 -0400
Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0910211232p2b78f256w31bd5d5920d47502@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
To: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr@tools.ietf.org, ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:32:50 -0000

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.

I see no problem with this document.  It points to the base Traffic
Engineering extensions for security considerations, and that seems
correct.

I'll add a note that I appreciated having abbreviations spelled out in
the introduction.  Thanks.

Barry