Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:12:27 -0600

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 specifies a Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) application for the
Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP).

The security considerations section does exist and refers to the base ICCP
specification, RFC 7275, for applicability.  7275 lists the security
constraints and limitations sufficiently when considering the reviewed draft.
The section goes on to describe potential DoS attacks as described in 7275
and provides a single example to mitigate such an attack.  Even though this
coverage is fairly sparse, 7275 outlines a more comprehensive list of thwarting
potential threats.
  
General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

PE, PW, AC, CE, and LDP are never expanded.

s/need be active/need to be active/

s/such system/such systems/

s/that support ICCP/that supports ICCP/

s/on CE or PE/on the CE or PE/

s/attack on channel/attack on a channel/

s/careful attack on channel/a careful attack on a channel/

Shawn.
--

---

From: Mingui Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:30:20 +0000

Hi Shawn,

Thanks for the review! The comments will be incorporated in the new version.

Thanks,
Mingui 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn M Emery [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04
> 
> 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.
> 
> specification, RFC 7275, for applicability.  7275 lists the security constraints
> and limitations sufficiently when considering the reviewed draft.
> The section goes on to describe potential DoS attacks as described in 7275 and
> provides a single example to mitigate such an attack.  Even though this