Subject: [Teas] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:36:40 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the SecDir reviewer that the referenced security considerations
are adequate, but it would be helpful to restate what's available in this
draft.  One does not expect an RFC from 1997 to cover integrity protections
(hop-by-hop) and authentication, so stating that these mechanisms are part of
the protocol would be helpful.  I did not dig into to see what was used for
those functions or if they are adequate today (if they have not been updated,
they are likely due).  Additionally, 2 of the other referenced RFCs had the
additional use of filters, does that apply here?  Can you add a couple
sentences about that as well?  I assume they do apply, otherwise the references
would not be included.

Thank you!