Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-09
review-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-09-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2024-10-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-10-22
Requested 2024-10-17
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Nalini Elkins , michael ackermann , Ameya Deshpande , Tommaso Pecorella , Adnan Rashid
I-D last updated 2024-10-21
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -04 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Secdir Early review of -01 by Adam W. Montville (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Peter E. Yee
Artart Last Call review of -08 by Marc Blanchet (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Gorry Fairhurst
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Carlos J. Bernardos
Comments 
Due to the proximity of the IETF-121 meeting, the IESG 'balloting' telechat are next to each other with little time in between. So, a prompt review of this document is welcome, let's assign quickly a reviewer ;-)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos J. Bernardos
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2 by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/hNOMEvtrgfOsVzpFTwuGFFgmo9E
Reviewed revision 09
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-10-21
review-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-09-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2024-10-21-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Note that this is a very quick review.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.

The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be
corrected before publication:

- Since the document indicates that implementations SHOULD support PDM,
unencrypted PDMv2 and encrypted PDMv2, should this spect obsolete/deprecate RFC
8250?

- Related to the former, sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 describe use cases where a
server does not understand PDM or PDMv2, but the previous paragraph indicates
that implementations SHOULD support all. Maybe some clarification would be
helpful.

- Section 6.1: how can we guarantee at protocol specification that PDM data is
kept confidential between the intended parties? Not sure this can be specified.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

- The use of acronyms should be harmonized. For example, in the packet format
of the unencrypted PDMv2 header, some terms are used as acronyms (e.g.,
ScaleDTLR), but others not (e.g., Delta Time Last Received). Also the
capitalization is different as what was used in previous sections.

- s/IPsec/IPsec