Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-09

From: Magnus Nyström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:48:49 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time)

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.

Background
----------
This document describes managed objects for point-to-multipoint 
MultiProtocol Label Switching based traffic engineering.

Comments
--------
This draft reads well to me and the examples of use of the managed objects 
are very helpful.

In Section 4.2, several MPLS-TE-STD-MIB objects with changed semantics in 
the context of MPLS-TE-P2MP-STD-MIB are described, for example 
mplsTunnelXCPointer. The text states that in the case of P2MP MPLS, the 
value for several of these objects SHOULD be set to 0 (or 0.0). Should not 
this be a "SHALL/MUST" rather than a "SHOULD" for P2MP TE systems? This 
since if a P2MP TE system does not set them to zero but to some other 
value, it seems as if a legacy P2P MPLS systems reading the same objects 
could become confused (I realize that not setting these objects' values to 
zero will not hurt other P2MP TE systems as they ignore these objects
anyway).

In Section 8, Even though the acronyms VACM and USM are spelled out in 
-09, it would be helpful for the reader with a reference to the documents
specifying these modules (RFC 3415 and RFC 3414, I believe)

-- Magnus

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 22:53:57 +0100

Thanks Magnus,

Helpful comments. We'll look at the SHOULD/MUST and add the references.

Will probably wait for a respin for other reasons.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Magnus Nyström" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:48 PM
Subject: SecDir review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-09

>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.
>
> Background
> ----------
> In Section 8, Even though the acronyms VACM and USM are spelled out 
> in -09, it would be helpful for the reader with a reference to the 
> documents