Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-14
review-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-14-secdir-lc-farrell-2018-06-17-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-06-28 | |
Requested | 2018-06-14 | |
Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Senthil Sivakumar , Christian Jacquenet , Suresh Vinapamula , Qin Wu | |
I-D last updated | 2018-06-17 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -06
by Jürgen Schönwälder
(diff)
Genart Early review of -09 by Roni Even (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Mach Chen (diff) Opsdir Early review of -10 by Tim Chown (diff) Genart Last Call review of -14 by Roni Even (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Stephen Farrell (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -16 by Joerg Ott (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Stephen Farrell |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 17) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2018-06-17 |
review-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-14-secdir-lc-farrell-2018-06-17-00
I see one major issue: 2.1: Logging in NATs and esp. CGNs is clearly sensitive in various ways. I think it'd be ok if logging was really out of scope, however, there is a logging-enable feature, I think under-specified, (on page 63) so the statement in 2.1 seems contradictory to me - if logging is out of scope why is logging-enable a flag?. Presumably if logging-enable transitions from F->T then you turn on (some undefined kind of) logging. If this transitions from T->F then what is the implementer supposed to do? I think that illustrates the under-specification here. The simplest thing might be to really make logging out of scope here by deleting the logging-enable thing entirely. (I can imagine that reaching consensus on a logging control interface would be non-trivial, hence the suggestion to really put it out of scope rather than try specify it fully.) Just one nit: The abstract could do with a bit of re-wording as it reads awkwardly. I'd say maybe just delete the 1st sentence.