Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-
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 is an informational document that appearently recaps requirement
levels for implementation and use of crypto algorithms for hop-by-hop
authentication of routing data. Assuming that no requirements are
being changed, I have no objections to the security considerations
analysis, but I do have editorial comments.
I got lost as to the purpose of this doc. Please reword the abstract
and intro to make it clear that you're merely recapping requirements,
not setting them (if that is indeed true).
Is there a way to present this information more compactly? I suggest
a table with routing protocol on one axis, crypto suite on another,
and requirement status in the elements (perhaps with a cite to the doc
that sets the requirement). You might separely say "MANDATORY to
implement, OPTIONAL to use, NOT SUGGESTED for use".
You could also put suggestions and speculation about the future in the
same table, though you may need to define some terms. And it needs to
be clear when this doc diverges from past ones or makes a new
statement. I have not gone back through the previous docs to confirm
that this doc isn't changing anything.
I see a whole bunch of lower case "may" and "should", and I'm
wondering what to make of them.
In describing each routing protocol's authentication options, it would
be helpful to say whether there's any in-band negotiation available.
If so, more needs to be said about that in the security
considerations. If not, it should be documented here.
I don't need to hear three or four separate times that cleartext
passwords are bad.
Minor: remove citations from the abstract (per rfc editor policy).