Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01
review-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-11-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-26
Requested 2013-10-31
Authors Manav Bhatia, Vishwas Manral, Acee Lindem
Draft last updated 2013-11-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Brian Weis (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-11-12
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2013-11-12

Review
review-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01-genart-lc-carpenter-2013-11-12

[Resending again with abject apologies for a typo in the To address.]

[Resending with CC to the IETF list, since the ospf WG list
automatically rejects non-subscriber messages.]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-11-12
IETF LC End Date: 2013-11-26
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  Ready with issues
--------

Major issue:
------------

The listed changes from RFC 6506 include:

>    2.  Section 3 previously advocated usage of an expired key for
>        transmitted OSPFv3 packets when no valid keys existed.  This
>        statement has been removed.

I cannot see where this has been removed. In the last paragraph of
Section 3, the text starting:

> In the event that the last key associated with an interface expires,...

has not been changed. Isn't that the text that should be removed? In fact,
shouldn't it be explicitly contradicted, to ensure that implementations
are changed to fail-secure rather than run-insecure?


Nits:
-----

"errata" is a plural, often misused in this draft as a singular. The singular
noun is "erratum".

	
> This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF	
> Contributions published or made publicly available before November	
> 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this	
  ...

This disclaimer logically cannot be needed, since RFC6506 was published
after Nov. 10, 2008.



> 6.  Security Considerations
...
>   It addresses all the security
>   issues that have been identified in [RFC6039].

and in [RFC6506] (judging by section 1.2).