Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-06
review-ietf-anima-brski-ae-06-secdir-lc-leiba-2023-11-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-05
Requested revision 05 (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2023-09-08
Requested 2023-08-07
Requested by Toerless Eckert
Authors David von Oheimb , Steffen Fries , Hendrik Brockhaus
I-D last updated 2023-11-04
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -05 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Comments
This request is to re-visit and update the results of prior early reviews. The authors have confirmed that they closed all early review issues.

This request is done in preparation to finish WGLC and to help move the document through AD/IETF/IESG review easier.

If possible, please assign SECdir review to Barry Leiba, who has done the -03 early review.
If possible, please assign YANGDOCTORS review to Reshad Rahman, who has done the -03 review.
Note that especially YANGDOCTORS review should be very quick, because the YANG modules where moved out to a merged draft (rfc8366bis), because there was no other way to define the single extended YANG model across different drafts.
Assignment Reviewer Barry Leiba
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TtyxrCQo6oxvqp5H4EvPT3En5V4
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-11-04
review-ietf-anima-brski-ae-06-secdir-lc-leiba-2023-11-04-00
First: My apologies for the long delay in getting this follow-up review done!

Second: Thanks for all the work on this document.  It's much improved from the
-03 version and addresses all my concerns well.

Just one small comment in Section 5.1:

   When using CMP, adherence to the LCMPP
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile] is mandatory.  In
   particular, the following specific requirements apply (cf.
   Figure 2).

Should “mandatory” be the BCP 14 “REQUIRED” ?  Your choice, as it can stand the
way it is, but I have a minor preference for the BCP 14 version.

And in Section 8, “Barry Lea” is supposed to be me, I think: “Barry Leiba”.  :-)