Last Call Review of draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07
review-ietf-aqm-codel-07-secdir-lc-nir-2017-03-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-aqm-codel
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-03-27
Requested 2017-03-13
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Fernando Gont (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Yoav Nir
Review review-ietf-aqm-codel-07-secdir-lc-nir-2017-03-21
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/7AazKecxEhh7M3YAAIn2-6y7Hxk
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2017-03-21
Review completed: 2017-03-21

Review
review-ietf-aqm-codel-07-secdir-lc-nir-2017-03-21

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document describes the CoDel (controlled delay) framework for reducing bufferbloat. It does a good job of describing the problem, outlining the solution and providing both a description of the algorithm (including pseudo-code) and linking to real world implementations. 

Two nits:

1. A lot of terms are used long before they are explained, such as Estimator, Sojourn time, Interval (BTW: if this is a moving interval the spec should probably say so). When reading sections 3 I concluded that the document was aimed at peopel who already knew all these terms and didn't need definitions, but then reading section 5 gave me a lot of a-ha moments about what I had read previously.

2. The security considerations section says "There are no specific security exposures associated with CoDel."  CoDel is about dropping packets, so immediately I have to think how I could subvert a router running CoDel to drop other people's packets. Perhaps it is fine to say that there are no known attacks on CoDel and no steps necessary to mitigate such, but I think it's tempting fate and hackers to say that CoDel has no security exposures.