Re: [Ace] [Russ Mundy] Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-14

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for the feed back Francesca. We have discussed this issue during the
interim meeting, so I would encourage Olaf and Stefanie to propose some
text that reflected the discussion before pinging Russ.

Yours,
Daniel


On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:02 AM Francesca Palombini <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am fine with Daniel's change to the DTLS profile (which wants to add
> motivation on why the DTLS profile is RECOMMENDED), and prefer Göran's
> formulation to the Ace framework.
>
> I had to think about it and figured out where the different
> interpretations come from, and hence what needs to be clarified:
>
>     "Profiles MUST specify a communication security protocol that provides
>        the features required above."
>
> Russ reads this sentence as: one (and only one) protocol MUST be specified
> *and used* between Client and AS.
> I (and others) read this sentence as: (at least) one protocol fulfilling
> the security requirements MUST be specified in the profile. (and as a
> consequence: One and only one of these protocols specified in the profile
> MUST be used between client and AS)
>
> I think Göran's modification clarifies the above, but hopefully Russ can
> let us know how to make his even clearer.
>
> Francesca
>
> On 11/02/2021, 12:35, "Stefanie Gerdes" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>     On 02/11/2021 04:26 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
>     >
>     > OLD: section 6.2
>     >  "Profiles MUST specify how communication security according
>     >    to the requirements in Section 5 is provided."
>     > NEW:
>     > section 6.2 is focused on security but the security requirements are
>     > provided in section 5. We may simply remove this sentence.
>     >
>     > OLD section 5.
>     > "Profiles MUST specify a communication security protocol that
> provides
>     >    the features required above."
>     > NEW:
>     > Profiles MUST provide some recommendation on protocols used to
> establish
>     > these communications.
>     > These communications MUST meet these security requirements. As
>     > communications meeting these requirements may be established in
> multiple
>     > ways, profiles MUST provide some recommendations as to favor
>     > interoperability. In most cases the recommendations aim at limiting
> the
>     > number of libraries the client has to support.
>     >
>
>     The reason that this requirement on the profiles was included in the
>     framework is that the framework itself does not specify how
>     communication security is provided. For the security of the solution it
>     is important that the profiles fill this gap. I think that it is
>     important to emphasize this security requirement. I therefore prefer
>     Goeran's proposals:
>
>     Proposal 1 (Section 6.2):
>     OLD
>       "Profiles MUST specify how communication security according
>        to the requirements in Section 5 is provided."
>     NEW
>     "The requirements for communication security of profiles are specified
>     in Section 5."
>
>     Proposal 2 (Section 5):
>     OLD
>     "Profiles MUST specify a communication security protocol that provides
>        the features required above."
>     NEW
>     "Profiles MUST specify at least one communication security protocol
> that
>     provides the features required above."
>
>
>     Viele Grüße
>     Steffi
>
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson