Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18
review-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18-secdir-telechat-rose-2018-09-20-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 27) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2018-09-25 | |
| Requested | 2018-09-11 | |
| Draft last updated | 2018-09-20 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by John Drake
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Kyle Rose (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Scott Bradner (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -15 by Brian Trammell (diff) Genart Telechat review of -16 by Francis Dupont (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -19 by Brian Trammell (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -18 by Kyle Rose (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Kyle Rose |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18-secdir-telechat-rose-2018-09-20 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 18 (document currently at 27) | |
| Review result | Has Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2018-09-20 |
Review
review-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18-secdir-telechat-rose-2018-09-20
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 have reviewed the -15/-18 diff and found no changes relevant to the points I raised in the first review and its subsequent discussion. I maintain that some reorganization is warranted to clarify the intended security properties of the system, especially given the complexity of the overall LISP ecosystem and the choice to move documents separately, complicating the realistic need to review them as a block. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add.