Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-

Request Review of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2011-08-15
Requested 2011-07-26
Authors Gregory M. Lebovitz , Manav Bhatia , Brian Weis
I-D last updated 2011-08-14
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -?? by Vijay K. Gurbani
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Stephen Kent
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Stephen Kent
Tsvdir Last Call review of -?? by Yoshifumi Nishida
Assignment Reviewer Stephen Kent
State Completed
Review review-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-secdir-lc-kent-2011-08-14
Completed 2011-08-14

secdir review of

I 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.

This document
(draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03) is a document intended to help guide
protocol development in the KARP WG. The abstract states  "This
document has two main parts - the first describes the threat analysis
for attacks against routing protocols' transports and the second
enumerates the requirements for addressing the described threats."
The threat analysis is VERY badly written; it is a hodgepodge of
attack discussions, using mostly non-standard security terminology,
and peppered with a lot of redundant statements. The requirements
discussion is somewhat better, but also suffers from use of poor
terminology, an ad hoc approach to organization, and substantial
redundancy. I have provided extensive comments and some questions in
the attached PDF (an MS Word change tracked version of the document).
The comments are so extensive as to not admit discussion in this

Section 1.1 provides definitions for terms used in the document, and
it has a number of problems. I suggest that the authors refer to NIST
SP 800 series documents for definitions of terms associated with
cryptographic keying, and to the IETF Security Glossary (RFC 4949) for
other security terms. Also, many terms are used in the threat
discussion (Section 2) that should be described based on the 4949
glossary, rather than what appear to be author-generated

The goals discussion (Section 1.5) is one of the few sections of the
document without major problems (other than editing).

This document needs to be sent back to the WG for substantial





 MS-Word document