Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rats-network-device-subscription-11
review-ietf-rats-network-device-subscription-11-secdir-lc-salowey-2026-04-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rats-network-device-subscription
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2026-04-13
Requested 2026-03-30
Authors Henk Birkholz , Eric Voit , Wei Pan
I-D last updated 2026-05-28 (Latest revision 2026-05-26)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Mallory Knodel (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joseph A. Salowey
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-rats-network-device-subscription by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-cHHyRToDQblHf2ZcCchm_oLoBI
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-04-12
review-ietf-rats-network-device-subscription-11-secdir-lc-salowey-2026-04-12-00
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 the document is ready.

I do agree with the Genart review by Mallory Knodel that the security
considerations could be more readable, especially since more of the security
considerations are by reference to other documents.

I do have a question on the nonces:

Section 3.1.1 Says the nonce can be used more than once. This seems
counterintuitive. Are there any recommended bounds on nonce reuse and how would
selecting these bounds affect the security properties? This seems more relevant
in the TPM 1.2 case as the clock values may be signed in the TPM 2 case, but I
am unsure if this is the case.