Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-08
review-ietf-babel-hmac-08-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2019-08-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-07-04
Requested 2019-06-20
Authors Clara Do , Weronika Kolodziejak , Juliusz Chroboczek
Draft last updated 2019-08-05
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 Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-babel-hmac-08-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2019-08-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/yXL5rMDgUF3UyaKNbbX3ek4qH5U
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-08-05
review-ietf-babel-hmac-08-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2019-08-05-00
This document describes a cryptographic authentication mechanism for the Babel
routing protocol that has provisions for replay avoidance. As this is not a new
protocol but rather an extension of the existing Babel routing protocol
allowing for both unicast and multicast datagrams to be used, a full RFC 5706
review does not apply.

The document is Ready from and operational and manageability point of view. It
is clearly written and provides all needed information to operators. It states
that the deployment can be made incrementally in existing networks where
current implementations of Babel are already present. It is important for
operators to pay attention at the restrictions of applicability defined in
section 1.1. There are also a number of recommendations in the text related to
configuration parameters that are of interests not only for implementers but
also for operators deploying these extensions - for example in sections
4.3.1.1, and 4.4. I would have preferred these to be included in a separate
'Operational Considerations' section.