[Iotops] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-02

[Russ Housley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Not Ready

I reviewed this document as part of the IoT Directorate's effort to
IoT-related IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-05
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2023-07-07
Review Due Date: 2023-07-24


A review from the IoT Directorate was requested on 2023-07-05.


Summary: Not Ready


Major Concerns:

Global: The document struggles with terminology.  Each of these security
protocols have their own terms, which make comparison more difficult.
Figure 1 shows the size of some exchanges with three flights, yet OSCORE
and Group OSCORE do not really fit this model.  This leads me to the
conclusion that the document needs to start with a discussion of the
comparison methodology.

Section 5: Yes, this document is purely informational.  Other purely
informational RFCs have useful security considerations.  I agree that
there is little to say here, but the Security Considerations of each
security protocol could be referenced.


Minor Concerns:

Section 2: I find the first paragraph hard to put in context.  First, a
sentence of introduction to this topic would he helpful.  Why are these
protocols being discussed at all?  I ask because the previous section
says that "overheads are independent of the underlying transport". 
Second, i this discussion is needed at all, it might help to describe
the overhead that is associated with the various underlying protocols,
and then say which security protocols are used with the underlying.

Section 2.1: I find the section hard to put in context.  A sentence of
introduction would he helpful.  Why is this one case explained in detail
and the others not?

Section 3: References for the algorithms would be helpful.


Nits:

Section 3.1: It says "key/certificate identifiers included" (two places).
I think that "key identifiers" and "certificate identifiers" need a few
words of explanation.