Skip to main content

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
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-06-28
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.