Early Review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-00
review-ietf-babel-dtls-00-rtgdir-early-przygienda-2018-09-26-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-babel-dtls |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-09-24 | |
Requested | 2018-08-27 | |
Requested by | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd | |
Authors | Antonin Décimo , David Schinazi , Juliusz Chroboczek | |
I-D last updated | 2018-09-26 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -00
by Tony Przygienda
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Sean Turner (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Henning Rogge (diff) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Sean Turner (diff) |
|
Comments |
QA review. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tony Przygienda |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-babel-dtls by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 00 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2018-09-26 |
review-ietf-babel-dtls-00-rtgdir-early-przygienda-2018-09-26-00
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-dtls Document: draft-ietf-babel-dtls Reviewer: Tony Przygienda Intended Status: STD Summary: Choose from this list... * I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG. Concerns are not defects but basically request for some clarification in document and reconsideration on minor issues Comments: · Draft makes inherent sense, of significance for future work in the routing area IMO for other protocols if the security requirements for routing keep on tightening · I think that the draft will benefit from an explicit justification why I solution based on SHA-1 cannot satisfy the security profile desired. Reading the draft I assumed that the main requirement was confidentiality which was incorrect. Discussions with the authors let to quite interesting insights that should be captured in the draft IMO. · The section explaining that all the babel frames must be unicast with DTLS could benefit from a small rewrite to read easier · I recommend the authors to rethink where they want to change base spec babel MTU by a hard offset. Even the DTLS can evolve in a Backwards compatible manner changing sizes. From experience with tunnels and routing protocols it may be better to just keep the original spec and imply than an implementation supporting DTLS has to deal with the according size overhead thanks --- tony