[OSPF] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------



section 4: Just checking that I've gotten this right. Is the
following correct? 

If RFC7166 is being used then there is never a need to modify
packets in a way that would break the authentication. In other
words, am I correct that this draft doesn't envisage any middlebox
changing an OSPF packet in between the source (of authentication)
and destination(s)? 

If that is correct, then we're good. 

If that is not correct, then I think more needs to be said in
section 4, as it is not at all clear to me how a source could emit a
packet that a middlebox could modify, without having to share the
symmetric secret used for RFC7166 authentication with that
middlebox, which would be fairly clearly undesirable.