Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-07
review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-06-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-07-04
Requested 2019-06-20
Authors Clara Do, Weronika Kolodziejak, Juliusz Chroboczek
Draft last updated 2019-06-28
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Mike McBride (diff)
Secdir Early review of -00 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Mike McBride (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by David Schinazi (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-06-28
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Ory7FyjYzLOka2uG4E-97DL5gSI
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-06-28

Review
review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-secdir-lc-sparks-2019-06-28

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 document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but has a nit that should be considered before publication.

Nit: (This was part of my early review of -00)

The claim in 1.1 about not requiring persistent storage is contradicted by the
definition of the protocol. At the very least, there is the need to persist the
most recent (index,PC) seen.