[secdir] Re: [Rift] draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing-05 ietf last call Secdir review

["Head, Jordan" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linda,

Thank you for the review!

I’ll reply to your contents inline below as jhead>>

From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, November 10, 2025 at 7:59 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Rift] draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing-05 ietf last call Secdir review

Document: draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing
Title: RIFT Key/Value TIE Structure and Processing
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Nits

Overall, the draft is safe but would benefit from a slightly expanded Security
Considerations section covering input validation, flooding risks, and
confidentiality hygiene. For example, the malicious or malformed KV-TIEs could
cause unnecessary churn or resource exhaustion. Implementations SHOULD validate
KV content, discard malformed entries, and log such events.

      jhead>> Generally, I have no issue expanding the security considerations section, but the existing security section points to the base spec for a reason as all of the security machinery protecting KV-TIEs already exists there throughout (e.g., TIE processing only on valid ThreeWay, the security envelope, authentication, etc.) I think anything additional only adds redundancy and risks confusion.

NITS:
 “permenent” -> “permanent”

 “publically” -> “publicly”

      jhead>> Fixed both nits, good catch.

Warm Regards,
Linda Dunbar



_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]