Subject: [Joel M. Halpern] Gen-Art LC Review: draft-ietf-kink-kink-11.txt

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:13:12 -0500

Hi.  I believe this review is on track and the
intent of the WG was probably to allow kink_encrypt to be used in these situations.
Can people confirm that's the case?

If so, does someone want to suggest a small set of textual changes
that accomplish this?  Please propose changes in rfc-editor note
format (rfcdiff --ab-dif) so we don't need to respin the draft.

--Sam

Subject: Gen-Art LC Review: draft-ietf-kink-kink-11.txt
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>, Jonathan Trostle <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:42:22 -0500

I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

This document appears to be ready for publication as a proposed standard.
I do have one minor comment below.  This may be a result of the fact that I 
am not a security expert and may well have misread the document.

Minor:
The wording of section 6.1 describing the content of the REPLY message, 
section 6.3 text describing the CREATE message, the example of the CREATE 
sequence, and section 4.2.7 on KINK_ENCRYPT are subtly inconsistent.
a) The description of KINK_ENCRYPT should indicate that the inner types are 
the same as regular KINK types, and that KINK_ENCRYPT is specifically 
intended to be used as a wrapper around other KINK TLVs.
b) The description of the REPLY and CREATE messages should state that 
KINK_ENCRYPT is a valid TLV.  The wording lists a set of TLVs that are 
valid, and does not list KINK_ENCRYPT.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

[Multiple copies of comment sent according to gen-art procedures.]

----
SEC: Kerberized Internet Negotiation of Keys (KINK)
      draft-ietf-kink-kink-11.txt

Responsible AD: Sam Hartman
Reviewer: Joel Halpern

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:08:14 -0500

Hi.  I've seen no action on Joel's review.

Brian has not chosen to hold a discuss so the resolution to the issue
will not require full IESG review.  However if we don't come to
resolution by Friday, the document will be delayed.

--Sam