Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Robert Sparks for the SECDIR review. ** Section 4. This document allows three methods (Section 2.2.3) of label allocation for MVPN [RFC6514] or EVPN [RFC7432] PEs and specifies corresponding signaling and procedures. ... None of the [RFC6514], [RFC7432], [RFC8402] and [RFC5331] specifications lists any security concerns related to label allocation methods, and this document does not introduce new security concerns either. Does this imply that the label allocations/advertising methods described in Section 2.2.3 rely on the security properties of the mechanisms described in other documents? If so, can this be explicitly stated? _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
