Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36
review-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36-secdir-lc-cooley-2024-03-01-02

These changes has been made.

Deb

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:09 AM Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
wrote:

> Deb,
>
>
>
> Thank you for catching the typo.
>
>
>
> Would the following sentence of Section 7 address your comment?
>
>
>
> *“A full security evaluation will be needed before [MULTI-SEG-SDWAN] and
> [SDWAN-EDGE-DISCOVERY] can be recommended as a solution to some problems
> described in this document.”*
>
>
>
> We are in the process of revising the SDWAN-EDGE-DISCOVERY draft based on
> the IETF119 discussion. Will update later this month.
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *From:* Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:45 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* secdir@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.all@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Secdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36
>
>
>
> Remaining comment and one nit:
>
>
>
> Section 5.1, paragraph 3:  The draft referenced here is expired and the
> security of the methods would have to be reviewed.  (that is listed in
> Section 7)
>
>
> The expired draft has been replaced with another draft.  The security of
> the methods would have to be reviewed.  Please list that in Section 7.
>
>
>
> Section 7, second to last bullet:  typo:  There is a single quotation mark
> at the end of the paragraph.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 6:08 PM Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Deb,
>
>
>
> Thank you. The -38 has been uploaded.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *From:* Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:53 AM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* secdir@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.all@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Secdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36
>
>
>
> perfect,  I'll take a look at -38 when it gets published.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Deb,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the additional comments and the suggested wording.
>
> They are reflected in the revision -38.
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:24 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
> Cc: secdir@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.all@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36
>
>
>
> Here is my review update for
>
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-37:
>
>
>
> I will update my review in the datatracker.
>
>
>
> original comments (in black), updates (in blue)
>
>
>
> 1.  Section 5.1, paragraph 2:  Certainly the principles and assumptions of
> RFC 4535* would apply to any group key management situation (note the word
> change from 'group encryption' to 'group key management').  The specific
> protocol addressed by that RFC isn't being used here (even though they
> mention ISAKMP). How about something like this:
>
>
>
> "The group key management protocol documented in [RFC4535] outlines the
> relevant security risks for any group key management system in Section 3
> (Security Considerations).  While this particular protocol isn't being
> suggested, the drawbacks and risks of group key management are still
> relevant."
>
>
>
> done.
>
> [Linda] Thank you for the suggestion. They are changed in -38.
>
>
>
> 2.  Section 5.1, paragraph 3:  The draft referenced here is expired and
> the security of the methods would have to be reviewed.  (that is listed in
> Section 7)
>
>
>
> The expired draft has been replaced with another draft.  The security of
> the methods would have to be reviewed.  Please list that in Section 7.
>
> [Linda] The referenced draft has been uploaded.
>
>
>
> 3.  Section 5.2:  The draft referenced in this section is (currently) an
> individual draft, and again the security of the methods would have to be
> reviewed. (I see that WG adoption has been requested, and the draft is
> listed in Section 7).
>
>
>
> This is just a note to the WG - no action required as long as the WG
> agrees.
>
> [Linda] the WG chair said they will start the WG adoption soon.
>
>
>
>