Subject: [Gen-art] Gen art LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:27:19 +0300

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00
Reviewer: Avshalom Houri
Review Date: 2010-09-06
IETF LC End Date: 2010-09-03
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: The document is almost ready for informational RFC

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

The document can benefit from some editing/rephrasing to make it easier to 
read.

Lines 236-237
   understanding that interoperability considerations will require 
   change to a MUST as operators migrate to this authentication scheme.
-> Not sure what this actually means.

Nits/editorial comments:

Line 215
   scheme as provides no protection against an attacker with access to 
->    scheme as it provides no protection against an attacker with access 
to 

Line 232
   be deprecated in future. 
->    be deprecated in the future. 

Line 249
   MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in future. 
->    MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in the 
future. 

Line 254
   future. 
-> the future.

Line 392
   interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in future. 
->    interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in the 
future.

---

From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 04:48:24 +0530

Thanks Avshalom for the review. I will update the draft with these comments along with the others in the next cut.

Cheers, Manav

________________________________
From: Avshalom Houri [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9.57 PM
To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); [email-masked]; General Area Review Team
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Gen art LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

The document can benefit from some editing/rephrasing to make it easier to read.

Lines 236-237

Nits/editorial comments:

Line 215
   scheme as provides no protection against an attacker with access to
->    scheme as it provides no protection against an attacker with access to

Line 232
   be deprecated in future.

Line 249
   MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in future.
->    MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in the  future.

Line 254
   future.
-> the future.

Line 392
   interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in future.
->    interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in the future.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:50:33 -0700

> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments

Thank you.

I think most of the comments are uncontroversial,

line 236-237 has the following implications:

RFC 5310 states that is-is implementations should implement support for
the generic cryptographic authentication scheme. If at some future date
recommendations were to support a key method other than HMAC-MD5 then it
would follow that support for the generic cryptogrphic authentication
scheme would become a requirement.

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:40:28 +0300

now that you explain this i understand the meaning so probably it should 
be clarified in the document

Re: Gen art LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00

Joel Jaeggli 
to:
Avshalom Houri
07/09/2010 09:51 AM

Cc:
manav, vishwas, General Area Review Team

Thank you.