Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-12-14
Requested 2012-12-07
Authors Roque Gagliano , Stephen Kent , Sean Turner
I-D last updated 2012-12-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by David L. Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by David L. Black (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by David L. Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Weis
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-08-secdir-lc-weis-2012-12-20
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Has issues
Completed 2012-12-20
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

This document describes a mandatory algorithm transition procedure for the
RPKI. It describes a single method, comprised of four phases and six
milestones. Each phase discusses a strategy for rollback of the new algorithm.
The algorithm transition procedure seems complete, and the security
considerations section is adequate.

One statement in the discussion of Phase 4 is confusing (Section 4.7). It first

  "RPs MAY validate signed product sets
   using Suite C. However, RPs SHOULD NOT assume that the collection of
   Suite C product sets is complete."

Later it notes that Suite A could be deprecated, and states:

  "At this stage, RPs are still capable of processing Suite
   C signed products, so the RPKI is still viable."

But if the Suite C product sets may be incomplete, how is the RPKI still
viable? This should be clarified.

- Section 3, "Corresponds" definition: s/Resoureces/Resources/
- Section 4.1, "End Of Life (EOL) Date definition: s/is MUST/MUST/
- Section 7, last paragraph. The final sentence would be clearer if it read
"Since Suite C products are being deprecated during Phase 4, a CA may revoke
certificates issued under Suite C without revoking them under Suite A." Ignore
if you don't agree.