Hi Russ,
The references to SEND are not needed. It was just an example.
Since it is not appropriate, I removed the references to RFC 3971.
I also addressed your other editorial comments in the other email.
Thank you very much!
Jorge
From: Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM
To: secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: bess@xxxxxxxx <bess@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Has Issues
I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-12-08
IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-15
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Has Issues
Major Concerns: I worry about the reference to SEND (RFC 3971). The
SEND protocol only supports digital signatures using RSA with SHA-1.
While this still might be adequate for the time scales associated
with ND, the 80-bit security offered by SHA-1 is not considered
adequate for digital signatures in general. Is the reference to
SEND really needed in this document?
Minor Concerns: None
Nits: The Gen-ART review by me includes some editorial suggestions.
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
