Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-05

From: David Mandelberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:08:27 -0500

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.

The summary of the review is Ready with issues.

Section 3.2.3 talks about using source addresses for security. Doesn't 
that security rely on adoption of BCP38? (Or does the multicast 
destination address make BCP38 irrelevant here?)

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:14:33 -0800

David,

Thank you for your review.  BCP38 is not really relevant for multicast, as 
RPF is baked into the cake when it comes to multicast.  If anything, BCP38 
can be thought of as making unicast behave the way multicast has always 
operated, as multicast forwarding is inherently based on the source 
address.

Please let me know if this answers your question, or if I'm missing 
anything.

Thanks,
Lenny 

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019, David Mandelberg wrote:

| 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.
| 
| The summary of the review is Ready with issues.
| 
| Section 3.2.3 talks about using source addresses for security. Doesn't that
| security rely on adoption of BCP38? (Or does the multicast destination address
| make BCP38 irrelevant here?)
|

---

From: David Mandelberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:21:13 -0500

Yup, that answers my question, thanks.