I guess I did mention this before but just in case that was missed - the idea 
of a separate confidentiality mechanism for each encapsulation/overlay protocol 
when these are all IP based does seem a bit inapposite to me. At a minimum, it 
opens up scope for additional security holes to prey upon (as against using a 
standard mechanism like IPsec).


> On 13-Oct-2016, at 7:27 AM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2016-10-12
> IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-04
> IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-13
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC
> Though this is not an area of expertise for me, the document is clearly 
> written, I reviewed the data structures and they appear correct, and the 
> document seems ready to go forward. (I do find it dicey that this is an 
> Experimental document. I understand there is history here, but this is a 
> full-fledged protocol document and the fact that it is only required to be 
> subjected to a cursory review for Experimental status and can pass IESG 
> review with one "YES" and everyone else "ABSTAIN"ing seems kinda ridiculous. 
> But that's not a reason to stop this document.)
> Major issues:
> None
> Minor issues:
> None
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Section 9, second to last paragraph: "Otherwise, the packet has been tampered 
> with and is discarded." The "tampered with" is probably overstating the case. 
> I would simply say "invalid".
> -- 
> Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ 
> <http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

lisp mailing list

Reply via email to