Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Chris.   That is helpful, and I am confident the authors will 
clean up the terminology.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/1/2020 8:34 AM, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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 is an "Early Review Request" so I'm going to mark the draft as 
> READY WITH NITS.
> 
> It appears that there's a raft of drafts of LISP documents progressing 
> together through the WG that cross-reference each other in that they all 
> provide foundation and support for their collective features. (I'll 
> admit that I haven't been keeping up.) So if my nits have been addressed 
> in another document, that just means that I didn't dig far or deep 
> enough so please consider giving a pointer in the Security 
> Considerations of this document so others won't similarly be left adrift.
> 
> In this document, and the associated others that I peered into, the term 
> "nonce" seems to be used more as a "token" than, well, what I consider 
> to be a nonce. In one case it may be a random value, but in several 
> others the value is stored, compared, and reused.  This is inconsistent 
> with the IETF's Security Glossary RFC 4949.
> 
> Also, there is a reference to increasing the nonce for a particular use. 
> However, I saw no discussion of what to do when the value exceeds the 
> field space.
> 
> Other than that, the document appears to be well written and well 
> thought out.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Chris
>