Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-12-15
Requested 2020-12-01
Authors Jorge Rabadan, Senthil Sathappan, Kiran Nagaraj, Greg Hankins, Thomas King
Draft last updated 2020-12-08
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09-secdir-lc-housley-2020-12-08
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2020-12-08


I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-12-08
IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-15
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Has Issues

Major Concerns:  I worry about the reference to SEND (RFC 3971).  The
  SEND protocol only supports digital signatures using RSA with SHA-1.
  While this still might be adequate for the time scales associated 
  with ND, the 80-bit security offered by SHA-1 is not considered
  adequate for digital signatures in general.  Is the reference to
  SEND really needed in this document?

Minor Concerns:  None

Nits:  The Gen-ART review by me includes some editorial suggestions.