Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

perfect,  I'll take a look at -38 when it gets published.

Deb

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Deb,
>
> Thank you very much for the additional comments and the suggested wording.
> They are reflected in the revision -38.
>
> Linda
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:24 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-36
>
> Here is my review update for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-37:
>
> I will update my review in the datatracker.
>
> original comments (in black), updates (in blue)
>
> 1.  Section 5.1, paragraph 2:  Certainly the principles and assumptions of
> RFC 4535* would apply to any group key management situation (note the word
> change from 'group encryption' to 'group key management').  The specific
> protocol addressed by that RFC isn't being used here (even though they
> mention ISAKMP). How about something like this:
>
> "The group key management protocol documented in [RFC4535] outlines the
> relevant security risks for any group key management system in Section 3
> (Security Considerations).  While this particular protocol isn't being
> suggested, the drawbacks and risks of group key management are still
> relevant."
>
> done.
> [Linda] Thank you for the suggestion. They are changed in -38.
>
> 2.  Section 5.1, paragraph 3:  The draft referenced here is expired and
> the security of the methods would have to be reviewed.  (that is listed in
> Section 7)
>
> The expired draft has been replaced with another draft.  The security of
> the methods would have to be reviewed.  Please list that in Section 7.
> [Linda] The referenced draft has been uploaded.
>
> 3.  Section 5.2:  The draft referenced in this section is (currently) an
> individual draft, and again the security of the methods would have to be
> reviewed. (I see that WG adoption has been requested, and the draft is
> listed in Section 7).
>
> This is just a note to the WG - no action required as long as the WG
> agrees.
> [Linda] the WG chair said they will start the WG adoption soon.
>
>