Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-cpr-06
review-ietf-idr-cpr-06-secdir-lc-weis-2025-02-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-cpr
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2025-02-07
Requested 2025-01-24
Authors Haibo Wang , Jie Dong , Ketan Talaulikar , hantao , Ran Chen
I-D last updated 2025-02-27 (Latest revision 2025-02-23)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -06 by David L. Black (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Weis
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-cpr by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/B2MzidGCdhro4wcALsYQHzQShEk
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-02-07
review-ietf-idr-cpr-06-secdir-lc-weis-2025-02-07-00
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 summary of the review is Ready.

The suggestions that I made in my Early Review have been satisfactorily 
addressed, and I see no further concerns.

There is just one nit regarding this new sentence in Security Considerations:
   "While this is similar to other intent- based mechanisms, as the packets will
   also be encapsulated with necessary information to represent and fulfill the
   intent."
I think the word "as" could be removed to make it grammatically correct. Then I
think it's intending to say that the added encapsulation will aid in hiding an
attacker's ability to "identify packets associated with a particular intent", 
but actually an attacker this motived to identify those packets will also be
aware of the additional encapsulations. I would suggest just removing this
sentence entirely, unless there is a different meaning than I understand.