Subject: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17

From: Klaas Wierenga via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 01:23:40 -0800

Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga
Review result: Has Issues

Hi,

I found 1 nit and one more substantial issue

- the abstract says:

OLD
RFC 8008 defines precisely the semantics of FCI and provides guidelines on the
FCI protocol, but the exact protocol is specified.

I think it should read

NEW
RFC 8008 defines precisely the semantics of FCI and provides guidelines on the
FCI protocol, but the exact protocol is not specified.

- A bigger problem I have is with the Security Considerations

You state "In the context of CDNI Advertisement, additional security
   considerations should be included as follows:", you then list a set of
   concerns, and then write: "Although protection strategies as described in
   Section 15 of [RFC7285] should be applied to address aforementioned security
   and privacy considerations, one additional information leakage risk
   introduced by this document could not be addressed by these strategies. "

So are they ADDITIONAL or were they ALREADY ADRESSED in RFC7285? Do you want to
call the ones you list out as specifically relevant for this use-case? Please
be clear why you list them here. And if they are NOT sufficiently addressed
yet, you need to address them here.

For the additional risk of leaking info from one uCDN to another uCDN it is
unclear to me whether the intended mitigation is meant as normative (SHOULD
instead of should) and I am curious why you don't make it a MUST.