Telechat Review of draft-ietf-drip-arch-24
review-ietf-drip-arch-24-secdir-telechat-smyslov-2022-06-20-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-drip-arch |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 31) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2022-06-28 | |
| Requested | 2022-06-13 | |
| Authors | Stuart W. Card , Adam Wiethuechter , Robert Moskowitz , Shuai Zhao , Andrei Gurtov | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-06-20 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -22
by Valery Smyslov
(diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -22 by Thomas Fossati (diff) Genart Last Call review of -22 by Roni Even (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -22 by Kyle Rose (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -24 by Dave Thaler (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -24 by Valery Smyslov (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Valery Smyslov |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-drip-arch by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/t2xTW6MfLdvXwSkMx3SugJYhrEc | |
| Reviewed revision | 24 (document currently at 31) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2022-06-20 |
review-ietf-drip-arch-24-secdir-telechat-smyslov-2022-06-20-00
I reviewed earlier the -22 version of the draft. The current -24 version addresses most of my concerns. However, one piece of text that I thought we have agreed upon with the authors (based on mail exchange https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/BMK4BuVWfECtHu34qikE9XmKTK0/) is still missing in this version. More specific: assertion that "It is well within current server array technology to compute another key pair that hashes to the same HHIT." is only true if the size of the the public key hash is small. I understand that this is probably the case for the DRIP architecture, but the assertion in the draft is generic with no mention of the actual hash size. I asked the authors to prepend the sentence with the text like "If the size of the public key hash in the HHIT is not large enough,", but for some reason this text didn't get into the -24 version. I don't think this is a serious issue, but I would prefer the assertions in the draft to be accurate.