Last Call Review of draft-seokung-msec-mikey-seed-
review-seokung-msec-mikey-seed-secdir-lc-weiler-2009-07-22-00

Request Review of draft-seokung-msec-mikey-seed
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2009-07-25
Requested 2009-07-18
Authors Tower It, Yoojae Won, Seokung Yoon, Hwankuk Kim, Hyuncheol Jeong
Draft last updated 2009-07-22
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Samuel Weiler
Assignment Reviewer Samuel Weiler
State Completed
Review review-seokung-msec-mikey-seed-secdir-lc-weiler-2009-07-22
Review completed: 2009-07-22

Review
review-seokung-msec-mikey-seed-secdir-lc-weiler-2009-07-22

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.







I see no problems with this draft -- it adds a few entries to IANA 


registries that have an assignment metric of IETF Consensus.  It has a 


dependency on a draft that was on telechat in June; all Discuss 


positions on that doc have been cleared.






The only questions I might ask are really out of scope: 1) does MIKEY 


deal with algoritm agility gracefully (e.g. is it subject to downgrade 


or DOS attacks)?  But that's out of scope for this review and this 


document.






And... 2) for the fields being changed (and others), 3830 says "a one 


byte length is enough" and establishes an IANA registry for the values 


0-255, but those fields appear to be encoded on the wire using a TLV 


scheme.  I have fear of future interop issues if some implementations 


hardcode the one byte length, and the text in 3830 makes it pretty 


clear that hardcoding would be justified.  But, again, that's beyond 


the scope of this draft to fix.




-- Sam