Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-login-security-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-regext-login-security
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-11-12
Requested 2019-10-29
Authors James Gould , Matthew Pozun
I-D last updated 2019-12-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-regext-login-security by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 10)
Result Has issues
Completed 2019-12-04

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) login
security extension that allows longer passwords to be created and adds
additional security features to the EPP login command and response.

I found the document well structured and easier to read and follow, but I have
one concern in regards to backwards compatibility and version management.

The document says:

2.  Migrating to Newer Versions of This Extension

   Servers which implement this extension SHOULD provide a way for
   clients to progressively update their implementations when a new
   version of the extension is deployed.

   Servers SHOULD (for a temporary migration period up to server policy)
   provide support for older versions of the extension in parallel to
   the newest version, and allow clients to select their preferred
   version via the <svcExtension> element of the <login> command.

However, in which cases the first SHOULD can be ignored? That would break
deployability. Further, now in the second paragraph, what is a "temporary
migration period"? 27 msec, 2 minutes, 56 years? What is "older versions"? n-2?
the previous how many? The client-driven selection and negotiation is useful,
however, what are the guardrails and constraints for the server?

Nit: Can the document incorporate instructions for the RFC Editor whether to
remove the "Appendix A.  Change History" section?


Carlos Pignataro.