[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 19 August 2011 18:09 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 55A4221F8B68; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g0kuEdPABip7; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A2621F8B62; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywm21 with SMTP id 21so2564024ywm.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+TK5QT4nFynySXOvv6IlRsNJLuxJ+iPeCv4tEdViLAo=; b=YTkf3LPiN2HzJWs6BTCf/uPf1Y/N4Vzc79Yz/iS3rKuUTuiWPDEWhZuNOE5RAS3JuZ jl4Ys6TbYOjkh+RAfq9chstvMHvlIWkiK3nzJApFQbvCGCTE4r2Onp+yhxAZveDXBnwo Jm1GtbjOCETwBpUFm5VyEpxohHixb5rfyjU28=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.195.70 with SMTP id o46mr407946yhn.21.1313777424636; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.236.209.37 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:10:24 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: gSKb_WAFK0ragT4lNh8inRft1Fc
Message-ID: <CALaySJLyNKHp0_QzaTbbX0FB9RASprJ2cknZQjp_=RqFgno4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:09:30 -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.
It's a simple draft, defining a few new flags, and I don't see any
problems with it.
I have one minor question; in section 2.2 is this:
An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping indication flag to signal the
Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and
payload identification is being signaled out-of-band. This flag
MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other
than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
On that last "SHOULD": what does it mean for any other LSR *not* to
ignore the flag? That is, what can they do? How can they not ignore
it, since there's no defined behaviour for them to do with it?
Barry
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te… Barry Leiba
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsv… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsv… Barry Leiba
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsv… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsv… Ross Callon