Telechat Review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25
review-ietf-core-resource-directory-25-secdir-telechat-smyslov-2020-08-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-08-11
Requested 2020-07-23
Authors Christian Amsüss, Zach Shelby, Michael Koster, Carsten Bormann, Peter Van der Stok
Draft last updated 2020-08-09
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Adam Montville (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -24 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -25 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -25 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Valery Smyslov 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-core-resource-directory-25-secdir-telechat-smyslov-2020-08-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/4A-r2jKKQ9NmLNGXpFlyxWxSJCw
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 28)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-08-09

Review
review-ietf-core-resource-directory-25-secdir-telechat-smyslov-2020-08-09

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.

The -24 version of this draft was reviewed by Adam Montville. I looked over his review and I think that the issue he raised about possible  mitigation of DDoS amplification attacks has been addressed in this version. I personally think that sentences describing how DNS and NTP are vulnerable to amplification attacks are redundant in this document, but that's a matter of taste and doesn't hurt.

It is my impression, that Security Considerations were mostly written having in mind that (D)TLS is always used, however it is only "SHOULD" in this draft (or even "MAY" if we look at RFC6690 which Security Considerations this draft refers to). I think that adding a few words describing which consequences for security not using (D)TLS would have and in which cases it is allowed will make the Security Considerations more consistent.