Hi Adam, Thanks for your review.
Your suggestion has been incorporated in 08 version posted https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-08 . -- Uma C. (On behalf of co-authors) -----Original Message----- From: Adam Montville [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 9:47 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-07 Reviewer: Adam Montville Review result: Ready This draft does not seem to introduce any security considerations beyond what has already been treated in RFC5286, provided the last claim in the security considerations of RFC5286 still hold (label information is to neighbors with a trusted LDP session). One suggestion I have is to rewrite the last sentence of the security considerations of this draft. At present that sentence ends up with, "...this does not introduce any new security issues *other than* as noted in the LFA base specification..." (emphasis added), which seems to suggest that the existing RFC has somehow introduced a new security issue to this draft. Perhaps something like, "This document does not change any of the discussed protocol specifications [insert list here], and the security considerations of the LFA base specification [RFC5286] therefore continue to apply." Or something like that. Kind regards, Adam _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
