Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15
Pete Resnick <firstname.lastname@example.org> Thu, 02 February 2017 16:06 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694AC12947A; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Pete Resnick <email@example.com>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 08:06:05 -0800
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:06:05 -0000
Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: Ready with Nits 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. (Apologies for the late submission.) For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-?? Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2017-02-02 IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-31 IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16 Summary: This document is basically ready, but there are a large number of nits, so many that I would think additional review would be desired. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: [Note: I do not see any particular technical problems with the document, but I don't have expertise in this area. I have listed below many clarifications and fixes to typographical and grammatical errors. (I did not note all of the punctuation errors as none of them left ambiguity.) Normally, I would simply list these as nits/editorial comments and leave it at that. But there are so many of these that I'm a bit concerned that the document did not receive sufficient technical review, given that it went through 15 versions and nobody fixed all of these editorial issues. That said, that is an issue between the AD and the WG.] It seems like section 2 should be moved up above section 1 since these specialized conventions are used in section 1. 1: The second to last sentence is ungrammatical and hard to read. Try this: OLD This document describes the parameters of the IKE protocol and updates the IKEv2 specification because it changes the mandatory to implement authentication algorithms of the section 4 of the RFC7296 by saying RSA key lengths of less than 2048 are SHOULD NOT. NEW This document describes the parameters of the IKE protocol. It also updates the IKEv2 specification because it changes the mandatory to implement authentication algorithms of section 4 of RFC 7296 by saying RSA key lengths of less than 2048 SHOULD NOT be used. END 1.1, first sentence: s/then/than 1.1, last sentence: s/in a separate document/in this separate document. 1.2: The last sentence of the third paragraph repeats what is in the last paragraph of 1.2 and therefore redundant. You can strike it. 2: I suggest adding a sentence after the first paragraph for clarification: "When used in the tables in this document, these terms indicate that the listed algorithm MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT or MAY be implemented as part of an IKEv2 implementation." 4307 never said that specifically, and I've always found it weird. 3.1, first paragraph: s/an integrity algorithms in Section 3.3/one of the integrity algorithms in Section 3.3 3.1, third paragraph: s/CRFG/the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) of the IRTF (You not only didn't define it, you got the acronym backwards.) 3.1, third from last paragraph: s/on those cases/in those cases 3.1, second from last paragraph: s/implementation/implementations 3.1, last paragraph: s/of-the-shelves/off-the-shelf ; s/therefor/therefore 3.3, last paragraph: s/status ware/statuses were 3.4, third paragraph: s/were/was 3.4, fourth paragraph: s/vulnerable to be broken/vulnerable to being broken 3.4, last paragraph: s/thater/that; s/academia have/academia has 4: s/concerned on/concerned with 4.1, first paragraph: OLD RSA Digital Signature is not recommended for keys smaller then 2048, but since these signatures only have value in real-time, and need no future protection, smaller keys was kept at SHOULD NOT instead of MUST NOT. NEW See section 4.1.1 for a discussion of key length recommendations for use in RSA Digital Signature. END (If you want, include some of the original text in 4.1.1. 4.1, third paragraph: s/it does not/they do not 4.2, paragraphs 1, 2, & 3: s/When Digital Signature authentication/When a Digital Signature authentication ; also, strike the word "then" in the first two paragraphs.
- Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15 Pete Resnick