Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-07-16
Requested 2014-07-03
Authors Tal Mizrahi
Draft last updated 2014-07-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Early review of -05 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-10-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-07-14
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-07-14


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at




Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.



Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 7/14/14

IETF LC End Date: 7/16/14

IESG Telechat date: 




A well written, clear and useful document documenting the security threats and the requirements on the deployment and activation of security protocols and options in the context of the time protocols with focus on NTP and PTP. Ready
 with a few non-blocking issues. 


Major issues:




Minor issues:



I am wondering if section 5.4 ‘Availability’ says anything different from what is already said in 5.1.3. which already talked about authentication of slaves impact on availability



Section 5.6.1 – ‘The cryptographic keys MUST be refreshed frequently’ – some definition of or detail about ‘frequently’ is required to make this requirement actionable


Nits/editorial comments:




Title of section 5.1.2 is printed differently than other titles at the same level of indent



Section 5.2 – s/implemented/implemented



Section 5.3 -  s/tamper with slaves’ delay computation/tamer with the slaves’ delay computation/



Section 5.6.2 – Security Association has different meaning in other context. Is not this section really about Association Protocol?



Why is Summary of Requirements a separate section (6)?



It looks to me that the references for NTPv4 and IEEE1588 should be Normative – it does not make much sense to read this document without a fair understanding of these.