Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08
review-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-08-02-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-regext-allocation-token |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2018-08-03 | |
| Requested | 2018-07-14 | |
| Authors | James Gould , Kal Feher | |
| Draft last updated | 2018-08-02 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -08
by
Al Morton
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by David Mandelberg (diff) Genart Last Call review of -09 by Peter E. Yee (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David Mandelberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-08-02
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Has Nits | |
| Completed | 2018-08-02 |
review-ietf-regext-allocation-token-08-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-08-02-00
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 Ready with nits. Section 2.1 says "The server MUST have the Allocation Token for each object to match against the Allocation Token passed by the client to authorize the allocation of the object." Does it make sense for a server to have salted+hashed tokens instead of the tokens themselves? Or to otherwise cryptographically verify tokens without storing the tokens? I think there's a typo in section 7, bullet 6, and I'm not sure what the intent of that sentence is. -- https://david.mandelberg.org/