Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05
review-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05-secdir-lc-ladd-2016-09-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-09-27 | |
Requested | 2016-09-15 | |
Authors | Alex Shpiner , Richard Tse , Craig Schelp , Tal Mizrahi | |
I-D last updated | 2016-09-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Joel M. Halpern
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Watson Ladd (diff) Intdir Early review of -04 by Joe Abley (diff) Intdir Early review of -04 by Zhen Cao (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Watson Ladd |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-09-22 |
review-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05-secdir-lc-ladd-2016-09-22-00
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 document presents a mechanism for servers and clients to conduct synchronization protocols over multiple paths. I didn't see anything wrong with the mechanism, but I am worried that its security benefits are overstated: independent paths may only be partially independent, and attackers can easily migrate from one router to another in most networks. Sincerely, Watson Ladd