Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06
review-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06-secdir-telechat-turner-2016-01-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ntp-extension-field
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2016-02-02
Requested 2016-01-14
Draft last updated 2016-01-21
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -06 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Sean Turner (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Sean Turner (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sean Turner
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06-secdir-telechat-turner-2016-01-21
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-01-21

Review
review-ietf-ntp-extension-field-06-secdir-telechat-turner-2016-01-21

Status: ready for launch

Version 6 introduced additional text for the security considerations section, which I like.

spt

> On Nov 02, 2015, at 03:52, Sean Turner <sean at sn3rd.com> wrote:
> 
> This version addresses my main concerns.
> 
> Not sure what you’re going to do with this though, but I guess that another draft’s problem:
> 
>> On Sep 17, 2015, at 02:02, Danny Mayer <mayer at pdmconsulting.net> wrote:
>> 
>> We probably need to update the dgest field in RFC5905 to make it clear
>> that it can have multiple lengths depending on the algorithm used. On
>> the other hand I would prefer to get rid of the MAC and turn it into an
>> extension field, assuming that the NTS/CMS scheme is not used. The
>> advantages of that is obvious especially as no guessing would be
>> required and we could specify the algorithm to use and you could have
>> multiple MAC extension fields that would cover different parts of the
>> packet.
> 
> spt