[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-07

Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 28 June 2019 18:54 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-hmac.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <156174806170.21879.2999727589481093933@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:54:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Ory7FyjYzLOka2uG4E-97DL5gSI>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-07

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but has a
nit that should be considered before publication.

Nit: (This was part of my early review of -00)

The claim in 1.1 about not requiring persistent storage is contradicted by the
definition of the protocol. At the very least, there is the need to persist the
most recent (index,PC) seen.

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ba… Robert Sparks via Datatracker
Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Juliusz Chroboczek