Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03
review-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03-secdir-lc-danyliw-2018-12-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-12-12 | |
Requested | 2018-11-28 | |
Authors | Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi , Spencer Giacalone , David Ward , John Drake , Qin Wu | |
I-D last updated | 2018-12-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -03
by Roman Danyliw
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Roman Danyliw |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2018-12-10 |
review-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03-secdir-lc-danyliw-2018-12-10-00
Document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 Reviewer: Roman Danyliw Review result: Has Nits 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. As the shepherd write-up [1] and Appendix A of this draft indicate, the text in this document is nearly identical to RFC7801 beyond changes made to Section 4. Nothing new was added to this bis draft beyond addressing errata. The minor editorial nits from this review are: (1) This draft doesn't register anything new. Section 2 opens with "[t]his document registers new IS-IS TE sub-TLVs ...". Technically, the RFC7801 already registered them. Perhaps "This document describes IS-IS TE sub-TLVs that can be ..." (2) Per Section 11, consider s/man-in-the-middle/on-path-attacker/ per [2] Not being deemed a nit that should be addressed here, but this draft does base some of its security properties on RFC5304/HMAC-MD5. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/shepherdwriteup/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg109350.html