[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 12 November 2013 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DF011E8138; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:16:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xR2I5u26okV; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C70421F9D46; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jt11so1111028pbb.0 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:16:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Eac+WUoRASku1FOfBJA1NP2+IsmCvv7gbb5MBVR+MR4=; b=rXuH7eivtUFnDC5JezO+dxvmpj4WeCzGnwHVxKnAWRycQilYG5T5+ieZyp4IfJL8CA RxCP+aJ8/lm0M3OmViohRAbMWgm8NvidQxxydgo3R2ibefHHb9yLYmEyPLGs+Nnq1dXb /BFY/jxri9c1gWZoyX5Q7qCB1ei6ov2ha6mfqxLjmIVU9UaKqJ14WqG2zAEQDn3jJPTc AI3myEM9nh3IjSymj70+1RBHgKaHBRM8PdDmsAjSE0C3WjKPN/S8UqJezDB5KBixSyWK dVlQcGqxww+0ktCBZ9bxuLOa3sazm6g0UCn9i06YLoMy2FS852Ajsn1nlwvLgf7Go8wY LZZQ==
X-Received: by 10.69.8.162 with SMTP id dl2mr37410429pbd.1.1384283816905; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (94.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id py4sm39199536pbb.33.2013.11.12.11.16.54 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52827EA9.7040706@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:16:57 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:16:58 -0000

[Resending again with abject apologies for a typo in the To address.]

[Resending with CC to the IETF list, since the ospf WG list
automatically rejects non-subscriber messages.]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-11-12
IETF LC End Date: 2013-11-26
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  Ready with issues
--------

Major issue:
------------

The listed changes from RFC 6506 include:

>    2.  Section 3 previously advocated usage of an expired key for
>        transmitted OSPFv3 packets when no valid keys existed.  This
>        statement has been removed.

I cannot see where this has been removed. In the last paragraph of
Section 3, the text starting:

> In the event that the last key associated with an interface expires,...

has not been changed. Isn't that the text that should be removed? In fact,
shouldn't it be explicitly contradicted, to ensure that implementations
are changed to fail-secure rather than run-insecure?


Nits:
-----

"errata" is a plural, often misused in this draft as a singular. The singular
noun is "erratum".

	
> This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF	
> Contributions published or made publicly available before November	
> 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this	
  ...

This disclaimer logically cannot be needed, since RFC6506 was published
after Nov. 10, 2008.



> 6.  Security Considerations
...
>   It addresses all the security
>   issues that have been identified in [RFC6039].

and in [RFC6506] (judging by section 1.2).