Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-07
review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-06-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-babel-hmac |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2019-07-04 | |
| Requested | 2019-06-20 | |
| Authors | Clara Do , Weronika Kolodziejak , Juliusz Chroboczek | |
| I-D last updated | 2019-06-28 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -00
by Mike McBride
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -00 by Robert Sparks (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Mike McBride (diff) Genart Last Call review of -07 by David Schinazi (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-babel-hmac by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Ory7FyjYzLOka2uG4E-97DL5gSI | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2019-06-28 |
review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-06-28-00
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. This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but has a nit that should be considered before publication. Nit: (This was part of my early review of -00) The claim in 1.1 about not requiring persistent storage is contradicted by the definition of the protocol. At the very least, there is the need to persist the most recent (index,PC) seen.