[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10

Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 27 January 2023 01:06 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Chris Lonvick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <167478161471.38643.9012449323875902900@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:06:54 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/sMxz2TKMhwsw15SDJBQYO760WyU>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10

Reviewer: Chris Lonvick
Review result: Has Nits

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.

It appears that the issue that I brought up in my early review of the draft has
not been addressed. The draft continues to use the term nonce in a way that is
not consistent with RFC 4949. This is likely not an operational problem as the
rules defined for using it are well described in the document. This could be
addressed by stating that a nonce is generated in the Map-Request, and the
value of the nonce is used in subsequent exchanges.

The TSVART reviewer of the draft seems to be much more familiar with LISP than
I, and brings up a lot of security issues. I would like to see those issues
addressed.

Regards,
Chris

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-li… Chris Lonvick via Datatracker
Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair