Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07
review-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07-secdir-lc-sheffer-2013-06-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-06-25
Requested 2013-05-30
Authors Tomohiro Otani, Kenichi Ogaki, Diego Caviglia, Fatai Zhang, Cyril Margaria
Draft last updated 2013-06-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yaron Sheffer 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07-secdir-lc-sheffer-2013-06-20
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2013-06-20

Review
review-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07-secdir-lc-sheffer-2013-06-20

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.






This document defines additional GMPLS-specific requirements on the PCE 


architecture.






It would be an understatement to characterize this reviewer as a 


non-expert on PCE and GMPLS. That being said, I believe the Security 


Considerations are correct in saying that this document does not add any 


additional security issues on top of PCE.






I would recommend to add a pointer to where such considerations are in 


fact listed, e.g. Sec. 10 of RFC 5440. Though security folks will cringe 


at TCP-MD5 being described as the most practical security solution in 


that section.




Thanks,
	Yaron