Avshalom,
Thank you for your review. As you identified, it would be useful to cite
the applicable security considerations that are documented and
inherited. I think that the following change would address your
concerns. This document defines a very incremental addition of a
sub-TLV, it would seem that further elaboration would be redundant:
4. Security Considerations
+ This document defines a new sub-TLV for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
+ Attribute. Security considerations for the BGP Encapsulation SAFI
+ and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute are covered in [RFC5512].
There are no additional security risks introduced by this design.
Please let us know if this addresses your concerns.
Thanks,
-- Carlos.
On 7/2/2009 9:00 AM, Avshalom Houri wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-softwire-lb-03
> Reviewer: Avshalom Houri
> Review Date: 2009-07-02
> IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-03
> IESG Telechat date: (if known) --
>
> Summary: The document needs to update the security section in order to
> be ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Line 269:
> There are no additional security risks introduced by this design.
>
> - The above is the while text in the security considerations section.
> Please specify where the basic security discussion for this was done.
> Please also say in few words why do you think that no security issues
> are introduced in this document.
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments: None
>
> Thanks
> --Avshalom
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
