Re: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 13 October 2021 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6923A05A4; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMcmZifMv8wr; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20663A086C; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1683F18015; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8woS2EKuXy7v; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BCF18014; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67355624; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <163337477331.26046.8239243254323936343@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <163337477331.26046.8239243254323936343@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:37:33 -0400
Message-ID: <19402.1634157453@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/3YEgABUhJax9MR90_wGwtSr7noU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:37:50 -0000

I'm replying again to this email for completeness:
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > ** Section 7.  Recommend generalizing the text.

    > OLD
    > Identifying which byte sequences in a protocol are addresses may
    > allow an attacker or eavesdropper to better understand what parts of
    > a packet to attack.  That information, however, is likely to be found
    > in the relevant RFCs anyway, so this is not a significant exposure.

    > NEW
    > This document provides an CBOR encoding for IPv4 and IPv6 address information.
    > Any applications using these encodings will need to consider the security
    > implications of this data in their specific context.  For example, identifying
    > which byte sequences in a protocol are addresses may allow an attacker or
    > eavesdropper to better understand what parts of a packet to attack.

I took your text as is, in commit 42e5c5cd0f3d7cb87a96908fba441f96391736e3
https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/commit/42e5c5cd0f3d7cb87a96908fba441f96391736e3

    > ** Section 8.3.  Recommend making the text clearer on what’s getting deprecated

    > OLD
    > IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54
    > for IP addresses" to registrations 260 and 261

    > NEW
    > IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED for use with IP addresses in
    > favor of 52 and 54" to registrations 260 and 261

And this change was made in
https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/commit/de38e39dfa7fce46c567b42332fb578632a6b749


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide