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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Well spotted Brian, thank you.

The author has updated the text and addressed these issues.

- Stewart

On 12/11/2013 19:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> [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).
>
>
> .
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html