On 9/6/10 9:27 AM, Avshalom Houri wrote: > 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.
Thank you. I think most of the comments are uncontroversial, line 236-237 has the following implications: RFC 5310 states that is-is implementations should implement support for the generic cryptographic authentication scheme. If at some future date recommendations were to support a key method other than HMAC-MD5 then it would follow that support for the generic cryptogrphic authentication scheme would become a requirement. > Document: draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00 > Reviewer: Avshalom Houri > Review Date: 2010-09-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2010-09-03 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: The document is almost ready for informational RFC > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > The document can benefit from some editing/rephrasing to make it easier > to read. > > Lines 236-237 > understanding that interoperability considerations will require > change to a MUST as operators migrate to this authentication scheme. > -> Not sure what this actually means. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Line 215 > scheme as provides no protection against an attacker with access to > -> scheme as it provides no protection against an attacker with > access to > > Line 232 > be deprecated in future. > -> be deprecated in the future. > > Line 249 > MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in future. > -> MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in the > future. > > Line 254 > future. > -> the future. > > Line 392 > interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in future. > -> interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in the > future. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
