Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-01-26
Requested 2015-01-02
Authors Ali Sajassi, Samer Salam, Nabil Bitar, Aldrin Isaac, Wim Henderickx
Draft last updated 2015-01-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by John Drake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Catherine Meadows
State Completed
Review review-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09-secdir-lc-meadows-2015-01-22
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-01-22


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.

This draft describes a method for integrating Ethernet Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) with Ethernet VPN (EVPN) to

improve the delivery of MAC addresses, in particular with respect to scalability.  

I don’t see any security concerns with this draft, but I do have some comments on the Security Considerations section.

It is very short, and all it says that the security considerations in the EVPN draft apply directly to this draft. I assume that

it is also the case that this draft introduces no new security considerations.  If so, you should say so, and you should

also say why.  Also, I was wondering if the mechanisms introduced in this draft, by introducing a greater degree of organization

in the delivery of MAC addresses, makes it easier to detect duplicated MACs, which were mentioned as a security risk in the

Security Considerations of the EVPN draft.  If this is the case, it would be a good thing to mention here.

I’d consider the draft somewhere between ready with nits and ready with issues.  I don’t see any real security issues

here, just a Security Considerations section that needs to be expanded a little, but this seems to be a little more than what the

secdir guidelines would call a nit.

Cathy Meadows


Catherine Meadows

Naval Research Laboratory

Code 5543

4555 Overlook Ave., S.W.

Washington DC, 20375

phone: 202-767-3490

fax: 202-404-7942


catherine.meadows at