Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 07:34:43 -0500

Hi,

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 "Early Review Request" so I'm going to mark the draft as 
READY WITH NITS.

It appears that there's a raft of drafts of LISP documents progressing 
together through the WG that cross-reference each other in that they all 
provide foundation and support for their collective features. (I'll 
admit that I haven't been keeping up.) So if my nits have been addressed 
in another document, that just means that I didn't dig far or deep 
enough so please consider giving a pointer in the Security 
Considerations of this document so others won't similarly be left adrift.

In this document, and the associated others that I peered into, the term 
"nonce" seems to be used more as a "token" than, well, what I consider 
to be a nonce. In one case it may be a random value, but in several 
others the value is stored, compared, and reused.  This is inconsistent 
with the IETF's Security Glossary RFC 4949.

Also, there is a reference to increasing the nonce for a particular use. 
However, I saw no discussion of what to do when the value exceeds the 
field space.

Other than that, the document appears to be well written and well 
thought out.

Best regards,

Chris

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:05:27 -0400

Thank you Chris.   That is helpful, and I am confident the authors will 
clean up the terminology.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Alberto Rodriguez Natal (natal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 01:16:00 +0000

Thanks a lot for the review Chris, this is much appreciated feedback. We will submit a new iteration of the document addressing your comments.

Thanks also Joel for facilitating the review.

Best,
Alberto

On 10/1/20, 12:06 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Yours,
    Joel