Gen-ART Review for draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 13 October 2016 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47287129405; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXgzzaQ8uGhr; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7966C1295C4; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1476323855; x=1507859855; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=1sgHNyDk9KMvQ/eENi5zQlyvr14bEmJfDMpqDdGEGL4=; b=NeYFFKy2Bqm8dYvQoGHzjoZUZOc0gcfR5C8LuoCU84nl49KF3ojpXtno gXlEQPq9oNaVEKWrIdd3J68BsJU+Bk1utcoU/kiD/VcmTM9dZ/pscrHh6 X8RP1oBgWzUrCRN6HVKT4w4Wvp9pxuVvBxMkO2vwhoyCLYDINzAUuR0zs 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,338,1473145200"; d="scan'208,217";a="326513763"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.110]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2016 18:57:33 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,8316"; a="1241252520"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 12 Oct 2016 18:57:33 -0700
Received: from [10.64.166.72] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:57:32 -0700
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-crypto.all@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART Review for draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:57:32 -0700
Message-ID: <C05B7CF3-3D83-4E69-B67C-976C08BB3611@qti.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_6063941C-5AC7-46A0-922E-7B0DBCEC8ECA_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01E.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.31) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/38NFYiJgNMCS-mLK-eAFh971wuc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:57:37 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-04
IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-13

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC

Though this is not an area of expertise for me, the document is clearly 
written, I reviewed the data structures and they appear correct, and the 
document seems ready to go forward. (I do find it dicey that this is an 
Experimental document. I understand there is history here, but this is a 
full-fledged protocol document and the fact that it is only required to 
be subjected to a cursory review for Experimental status and can pass 
IESG review with one "YES" and everyone else "ABSTAIN"ing seems kinda 
ridiculous. But that's not a reason to stop this document.)

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 9, second to last paragraph: "Otherwise, the packet has been 
tampered with and is discarded." The "tampered with" is probably 
overstating the case. I would simply say "invalid".

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478