Re: [core] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-08
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 04 January 2021 13:48 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C903A0D3A; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 05:48:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 5hcIHUPnsuJ8; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 05:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p226.piuha.net [193.234.219.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2CF3A0D39; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 05:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9CBB66012A; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:48:29 +0200 (EET)
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id erltOKfLdTOz; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:48:27 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D11D166019D; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:48:27 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <160702546541.14061.15940689920006174458@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 15:48:26 +0200
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-dev-urn.all@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C23E800A-FAEA-421A-BDAB-D4084D967B5D@piuha.net>
References: <160702546541.14061.15940689920006174458@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Brian Weis <bew.stds@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/5YHtdmpqpfilBnwtICLjuTfWYDE>
Subject: Re: [core] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-08
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 13:48:37 -0000
Brian: Many thanks for your review. I’m going through the various review comments and taking them into account. I agree with the three points you made. A new version will be submitted soon, for the moment you can see the changes in https://arkko.com/ietf/core/draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-from--08.diff.html and https://arkko.com/ietf/core/draft-ietf-core-dev-urn.txt Jari > On 3 Dec 2020, at 21.57, Brian Weis via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Weis > Review result: Serious Issues > > I have 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 editors and WG chairs should > treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > The summary of the review is Ready with nits. > > This document generally defines a new URN namespace for hardware > device identifiers, and then further defines the URN body layout > for several types of devices, where devices are identified by a > global identity (e.g., a MAC address, organizational-specific serial > number, etc.). > > Long-term identifiers have privacy considerations, and these are > well documented here. > > Here are some things that ought to be thought about: > > (1) The Security Considerations section seems to focus on concerns > around devices not allowing the device identifiers to be modified, > and gives rather broad advice about a DEV URN implementation > faithfully representing the device. It would be good for this section > to also warn implementors of the risks of a DEV URN being transmitted > without integrity protection. That is, if the device faithfully > represents itself, a man in the middle changing the DEV URN in a > protocol may cause the system using the device to not manage the > device properly, or in some manner inappropriately adjust the privileges > allowed by the device within that system. > > (2) Section 1 says about privacy “Note that long-term stable unique > identifiers are problematic for privacy reasons and should be used > with care or avoided as described in [RFC7721].” Given the later > guidance that “The DEV URN type SHOULD only be used for persistent > identifiers”, I think the “or avoided” portion of that sentence is > inappropriate for this document. > > (3) Section 5 begins with “The following three examples provide > examples of MAC-based, 1-Wire, and Cryptographic identifiers”. There > are now more than three examples provided (thanks for that!), and > it appears that cryptographic identifiers have ben removed in an > earlier draft. > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
- [core] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-core… Brian Weis via Datatracker
- Re: [core] [secdir] Secdir last call review of dr… Brian Weis
- Re: [core] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of… Jari Arkko
- Re: [core] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of… Jari Arkko
- Re: [core] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of… Carsten Bormann