Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-06
review-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-06-secdir-lc-johansson-2013-02-21-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2013-02-27 | |
Requested | 2013-02-14 | |
Authors | Dan Frost , Stewart Bryant , Matthew Bocci | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2013-06-07) | |
Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06
by Martin Thomson
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Martin Thomson (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Leif Johansson (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Leif Johansson |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2013-02-21 |
review-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-06-secdir-lc-johansson-2013-02-21-00
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 technology is somewhat outside my area of expertise but I found the document relatively easy to follow anyway. I'm a fan of writing crypto-related algorithms with very little left for the imagination of the reader. To that end I would strongly suggest specifying what goes into the GAP message hash even more clearly. In this case I suspect the intent is that the inner hash is over all bytes of GAP message except the GAP authentication TLV which is added to the message _after_ the hash is computed. Conversely the validation phase needs to clearly say what bits of the message are to be included in computing the hash. Also I would change the timestamp verification step to use normative language, eg: "... the receiver MUST, upon successfully authenticating a message verify that the timestamp field corresponds... The receiver MUST silently discard a GAP message that fails timestamp verification."