IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-05
review-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-05-secdir-lc-hollebeek-2025-08-07-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-08-12 | |
| Requested | 2025-07-22 | |
| Authors | Ron Bonica , hexiaoming , Xiao Min , Tal Mizrahi | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-02-21 (Latest revision 2025-08-20) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -05
by Linda Dunbar
(diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Jen Linkova (diff) Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Tim Hollebeek (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Hollebeek |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/VTVY1sYNXOdO-ey8YBPWOSXRXvU | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-08-07 |
review-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-05-secdir-lc-hollebeek-2025-08-07-00
I appreciate making the length explicit ... the implicit length sounds non-ideal, and I'm glad to see this RFC is fixing it. I don't generally love "Security Considerations via inheritance", but in this case, RFC 4884 already does call out the relevant points, namely that checking the checksum is a good idea and be careful not to trust the explicit length more than it deserves. It's short and sweet ... looks good to me.