Telechat Review of draft-gutmann-scep-10
review-gutmann-scep-10-opsdir-telechat-hares-2018-04-26-00
Request | Review of | draft-gutmann-scep |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 16) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-03-06 | |
Requested | 2018-01-25 | |
Authors | Peter Gutmann | |
I-D last updated | 2018-04-26 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Telechat review of -10
by Susan Hares
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Genart Last Call review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Susan Hares |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-gutmann-scep by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 16) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2018-04-26 |
review-gutmann-scep-10-opsdir-telechat-hares-2018-04-26-00
caveat: I am not a security expert famliy with the deployment of the SCEP protocol. If an operational experience with this protocol is required for this review, I suggest you obtain a secondary review. General comments: The document summarizes in a readable fashion all the issues I could image regarding this protocol's deployment issues. Issues of scale and security have been examined. Editorial: p. 19, section 3.3.1, British spelling of authorization is used (authorisation). RFC editor may want to change or author may want to change to US spelling. p. 26 - I appreciate the use of non-idempotent and idempotent in this section. I hope this is normal language for the security area.