Hi Greg, My latest review actually refers to the latest version of the document, -14. What I’m saying is that the new Security Considerations are in principle fine, but they are worded badly. Here’s what Gemini says… - Security Considerations
Section 7 of "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Framework" [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] outlines security considerations for non-protocol specifying documents. The authors have verified that these considerations are fully applicable to this document. In-depth security analysis for each specific use case is beyond the scope of this document and will be addressed in future solution documents. It is strongly recommended that these solution documents undergo security expert review early in their development, ideally during the Working Group Last Call phase. Thanks, Yaron From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 20 September 2024 at 19:31
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF SecDir <secdir@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases.all@xxxxxxxx>, Last Call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, mpls <mpls@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-14 On Thu, Sep 19, 2024, 22:34 Yaron Sheffer via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer
Review result: Has Nits
This is a repeat review of the document after I complained about the lack of a
Security Considerations section in -12.
I'm fine with the new Security Considerations section which basically points to
another document and asserts that the considerations there apply to this
document. But the wording is hard to parse and the whole section needs
copyediting even though it's just a few sentences. The first sentence, in
particular, could have been improved with the addition of another verb.
|
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
