Thanks for the review, Stephen. I've removed the example as you suggested. (Already posted in rev22) Cheers, Pablo. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: sábado, 5 de noviembre de 2022 18:47 To: secdir@xxxxxxxx Cc: dmm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-21 Reviewer: Stephen Farrell Review result: Has Issues This is a relatively minor issue, but worth fixing. This draft is aiming for standards-track. RFC2804 says that we won't standardise lawful intercept mechanisms, yet the draft specifies in 6.1 that Args.Mob.Session can be used for that. I'd say best is to just drop that example usage to avoid having to worry about this. Otherwise, if one believes the basic security claim of SRv6 (that traffic can be kept within a "trusted" local n/w) then the security considerations here are correct that this doesn't add anything new. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
