Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10
review-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10-secdir-lc-wallace-2014-10-30-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2014-10-28 | |
| Requested | 2014-10-02 | |
| Draft last updated | 2014-10-30 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Peter Yee
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Peter Yee (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Carl Wallace (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Carl Wallace |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10-secdir-lc-wallace-2014-10-30 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 10 (document currently at 11) | |
| Review result | Has Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2014-10-30 |
Review
review-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10-secdir-lc-wallace-2014-10-30
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 describes a MIB that "describes managed objects for modeling of Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs”. I am not a MIB guy and did not review the definitions. The security considerations section mostly addresses SNMP related considerations in general via references to other specs. This seems fine. The only minor nit here is the following: Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), including full support for authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. RFC3410 only defines support for use of CBC-DES. If support for AES is intended instead of DES, that should be noted more strongly here. The requirement for "full support" of RFC3414 could be misinterpreted.