Re: [karp] WGLC of draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-03

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On 5/28/12 7:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Turner<[e-mail]>  writes:
>
>      Sean>  Quick question: Should the OSPFv3 section discuss RFC 6506:
>      Sean>  Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3?
>
> I guess we can update to add a reference if you like. I kind of view
>   this as work that lead to that RFC though.

I think it's worth pointing out that one of the follow-on documents that 
this analysis was going to produce is completed.

Also should this sentence be changed:

OLD:

A security solution will be developed for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 based on the 
OSPFv2 cryptographic authentication option.

NEW:

A security solution will be developed for OSPFv3 based on the OSPFv2 
cryptographic authentication option.

Shouldn't this draft also discuss the

Only talking about OPSFv3?  It seems odd to develop a security solution 
for OSPv2 based on the already defined OSPFv3 option.

Isn't [I-D.ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying] also a solution 
output that should be discussed in s5?


some nits from nitchecker:

Need an IANA considerations section.

r/I-D.ietf-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues/RFC6309

r/draft-ietf-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues/RFC6309

r/draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-04/draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-05

r/draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying-01/draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying-02

spt