Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-07
review-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-07-secdir-telechat-shekh-yusef-2022-08-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-08-09
Requested 2022-07-14
Authors Tommy Pauly , Valery Smyslov
I-D last updated 2022-08-04
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -06 by Mark Nottingham (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Reese Enghardt (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -07 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/m1AkuGIH0xoi-BV4Cp1Vl_wBJoo
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-08-04
review-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-07-secdir-telechat-shekh-yusef-2022-08-04-00
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 with one comment

The security considerations section describes two potential recovery mechanisms
to an injection attack. The first option is to close the TCP connection and let
the originator recreate it. The second option is a re-sync mechanism. The way I
read the document, it seems that the first option is the recommended one, but
it is not clear to me when should the second option be used, if at all. It
would be great if some text be added to clarify this.