Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04
review-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04-secdir-lc-turner-2015-10-29-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-11-02 | |
| Requested | 2015-10-22 | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-10-29 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Roni Even
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Sean Turner (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Sean Turner |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04-secdir-lc-turner-2015-10-29 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
| Review result | Has Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2015-10-29 |
Review
review-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04-secdir-lc-turner-2015-10-29
Fear not as this is just the secdir review! 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 with the intent of improving security requirements and considerations in IETF drafts. Comments not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. draft summary: This bis document specifies crypto/CMS-related “stuff” for RPKI subscribers and relying parties: signature and hash algorithm parameters, public key formats, etc. It doesn’t define new algorithms it just says use these values from these other RFCs in this field or that field. The authors made it really easy for reviewers in that they included a list of all of the changes since RFC6485 in s8; thanks for that. There’s a few DOWNREFs in the draft, but they are all referenced in the IETF LC and I have no problem with the new one; two were already in the DOWNREF registry. secdir summary: We are go for launch! (i.e., ready) nit: There’s a stray “/>” in s6, but the RFC editor can fix that up. spt