Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:32:31 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<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.

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC
but I have a few comments.

Minor
=====

* Section 2

I think the definition of a P router is not very accurate. It reads

"A P router is used to interconnect the PE routers."

Isn't it possible that there are multiple P routers on a path between
two PE routers

e.g.

PE--P--P--P--PE

* Section 3

-> "Figure 1 depicts the concept of trusted zones within the MPLS/GMPLS
framework"

Figure 1 does not show the trusted zones at all. It needs to be revised
or this sentence needs to be removed.

-> In Figure 2 why is CE1 considered an unauthorized neighbor? I can
understand why it is untrusted but I do not see why it is unauthorized.

* Section 4

"The discussion is limited to those threats that are unique to
MPLS/GMPLS networks or that affect MPLS/GMPLS network in unique ways."

This is not really true. Most of the attacks described in this document
are not specific to MPLS/GMPLS networks at all. Suggest removing this
sentence.

Editorial
=========

Please fix the following typos

* Section 7.1.1

s/cryptograpgic/cryptographic/

* Normative References

s/EFC 2741/RFC 2747/

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:55:57 +0000

Hi Suresh,

> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments

Well, we won't treat these as "any other Last Call comments" as they arrived 
almost two months after the end of the last call period.

However, we do value your review and thank you for your comments. As the 
draft is still under revision after Last Call, I will ask the document 
editor to take them into consideration along the way.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:02:05 -0500

> almost two months after the end of the last call period.

Sorry about that. I missed the deadline due to unexpected personal 
issues and I saw that the draft was in the process of being revised. I 
thought a review might still be useful. If it was in the RFC-Ed queue I 
would not have sent in a review :-).

Thanks
Suresh