Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19
review-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19-secdir-lc-turner-2018-02-27-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 20) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-02-26 | |
Requested | 2018-02-12 | |
Authors | Robert Moskowitz , Miika Komu | |
I-D last updated | 2018-02-27 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Telechat review of -19
by Dan Frost
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -19 by Will (Shucheng) LIU (diff) Genart Last Call review of -18 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Sean Turner (diff) Genart Telechat review of -19 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Sean Turner |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 19 (document currently at 20) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2018-02-27 |
review-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19-secdir-lc-turner-2018-02-27-00
This is a bis draft of the HIP (Host Identity Protocol) Architecture and because of that I focused on what’s changed (i.e., I reviewed the diffs from https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc4423&url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18). It’s still HIP but with a slightly expanded scope; it’s still Informational. 1. s4: The one place where I’ll step out from not looking at the old is a similar-ish recommendation that was in the RF4423: In this document, the non-cryptographic forms of HI and HIP are presented to complete the theory of HI, but they should not be implemented as they could produce worse denial-of-service attacks than the Internet has without Host Identity. Should the should not be a SHOULD NOT? 2. (none security) s4.4: Is the paragraph about IPv4 vs IPv6 vs LSI really necessary? I.e., is this yet another thing that folks are going to use to not transition to IPv6? 3. s11.2: Isn’t an additional drawback the need to have a HIP-aware firewall?