Re: [OSPF] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-hmac-sha-05

["Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

Thanks for the review!
 
> I wonder whether the "SHOULD" requirement for implementation
> in Section 3 ought to include HMAC-SHA-224 and HMAC-SHA-384.
> I would have stated requirements for these two hashes as "MAY"
> in order to encourage use of either HMAC-SHA-256 or HMAC-SHA-512
> when HMAC-SHA-1 is insufficient, but this is a judgment call.
> To avoid confusion, this is a request that the authors think
> about this topic; it is *not* a comment that the requirement
> needs to be changed.  If the authors believe that the current
> "SHOULD" requirements for these two hashes are the right
> approach, that is acceptable to me.

Given that SHA-224 (and perhaps SHA-384) is not even present in all crypto libraries we could, if others don't see a problem, move this from a SHOULD to a MAY.

> In Section 3.2, it would be useful for the draft to say that an
> OSPFv2 Security Association is not set up inband via OSPFv2, in
> contrast to an IPsec Security Association created via IKE.  Among

Yup, sounds reasonable. We could add this too.

> the reasons that this should be done is that the term "OSPFv2
> Security Association" is introduced in this draft - that term
> does not occur in RFC 2328, even though Section D.3 of RFC 2328
> defines an abstraction for which "OSPFv2 Security Association"
> is an appropriate name.  I recommend stating that this term is
> new to this draft.
> 
> The mention of IP Security in the next to last paragraph of
> the Security Considerations (section 4) should cite an
> informative reference, RFC 4301 would be appropriate.
> 

Yup, this can also be done.

Cheers, Manav