Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07

From: Adam Montville <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 09:46:47 -0700

Reviewer: Adam Montville
Review result: Ready

This draft does not seem to introduce any security considerations beyond what
has already been treated in RFC5286, provided the last claim in the security
considerations of RFC5286 still hold (label information is to neighbors with a
trusted LDP session).

One suggestion I have is to rewrite the last sentence of the security
considerations of this draft. At present that sentence ends up with, "...this
does not introduce any new security issues *other than* as noted in the LFA
base specification..." (emphasis added), which seems to suggest that the
existing RFC has somehow introduced a new security issue to this draft.

Perhaps something like, "This document does not change any of the discussed
protocol specifications [insert list here], and the security considerations of
the LFA base specification [RFC5286] therefore continue to apply." Or something
like that.

Kind regards,

Adam

---

From: Uma Chunduri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:58:33 +0000

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your review.  

Your suggestion has been incorporated in 08 version posted   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-08 .
--
Uma C. (On behalf of co-authors)

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Montville [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 9:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07

Reviewer: Adam Montville
Review result: Ready

This draft does not seem to introduce any security considerations beyond what has already been treated in RFC5286, provided the last claim in the security considerations of RFC5286 still hold (label information is to neighbors with a trusted LDP session).

One suggestion I have is to rewrite the last sentence of the security considerations of this draft. At present that sentence ends up with, "...this does not introduce any new security issues *other than* as noted in the LFA base specification..." (emphasis added), which seems to suggest that the existing RFC has somehow introduced a new security issue to this draft.

Perhaps something like, "This document does not change any of the discussed protocol specifications [insert list here], and the security considerations of the LFA base specification [RFC5286] therefore continue to apply." Or something like that.

Kind regards,

Adam