[core] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-stateless-06: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 21 April 2020 16:46 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietf.org
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701C23A0F51; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-core-stateless@ietf.org, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, cabo@tzi.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.127.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158748756109.7027.15426555333551646544@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:46:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/iqV6GA7AMz1pPAgLEgGPNhWmaOs>
Subject: [core] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-stateless-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:46:02 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-core-stateless-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-stateless/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position that the SHOULDs in Section 3.1 would likely be better described as MUSTs. Additionally, I would recommend, threading this guidance with Section 3.3. and 5.2. Specifically: -- Section 3.3. Per “If a piggybacked response passes the token integrity protection and freshness checks …” and “If a separate response passes the token integrity protection and freshness checks …”, where is the guidance for these checks described? Is that the language in Section 3.1? -- Section 5.2. Per “The use of encryption, integrity protection, and replay protection of serialized state is recommended …”, why not “RECOMMENDED”? How does this text line with the conditions outlined in Section 3.1? -- Section 5.2. Per “AES-CCM with a 64 bit tag is recommended …”, why not “RECOMMENDED?” ** Section 5.2. Please provide a citation for AES-CCM and HMAC-SHA-256. ** Section 5.2. Recommend describing the consequences of not using security services. Perhaps something on the order of: OLD: The use of encryption, integrity protection, and replay protection of serialized state is recommended , unless a careful analysis of any potential attacks to security and privacy is performed. NEW The use of encryption, integrity protection, and replay protection of serialized state is recommended, unless a careful analysis of any potential attacks to security and privacy is performed. In the absence of integrity and reply protection, an on-path attacker or rogue server/intermediary could return a state (either one modified in a reply, or an unsolicited one) that could alter the internal state of the client stack. ** Editorial nit: -- Figure 2 and 5. I would recommend replacing the colloquialism “look ma, no state!” with “no state”.
- [core] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker