Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04
review-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04-secdir-lc-johansson-2015-10-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-10-13
Requested 2015-09-24
Authors Ron Bonica, Ina Minei, Michael Conn, Dante Pacella, Luis Tomotaki
Draft last updated 2015-10-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by John Drake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Leif Johansson 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04-secdir-lc-johansson-2015-10-15
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-10-15

Review
review-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04-secdir-lc-johansson-2015-10-15

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 that arrive in
timely manner, and not significantly belated.

First of all - pls apologize for being very late with this review!

The field is also well outside my area of expertise which may make
my review moot.

My one comment is that the Security Considerations section identifies
the Session-ID as sensitive and sais that implementations SHOULD NOT
be assigned in a predictable manner. Given the security implications
of Session-ID forgery (also clearly stated in the SC section) it
might be worth recommending the use of a CSPRNG to generate
the Session-IDs

I'm curious about how this is done in implementations today though...

	Cheers Leif