Thanks Yoav,
RFC Editor note entered for your observation.
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Yoav
Nir
Sent: 13 May 2012 07:47
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list; secdir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03
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 document does not define any new procedures or mechanisms, and
mentions this fact three times throughout the document. It formalizes an email
by Adrian Farrel clarifying the procedures for processing an ASSOCIATION
object
on a path message.
The security considerations section repeats that the document does not define
new procedures, and concludes that no security considerations are added. This
is
not a valid deduction, as clarification often involves prohibiting
non-functional or
insecure interpretation of the original document text. However, in this case
the
clarification is not about such insecure configurations, so the document is
fine.
One textual comment, though: section 2.2 near the bottom of page #5 lists 3
possible values for association ID. The second option is "The LSP ID of the
LSP
protecting an LSP". This is not clear. I suggest rewording as "The LSP ID of
the
protecting LSP" without an indefinite "an LSP".
Yoav=