Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-04: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 12 Apr 2017, at 22:11, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> Hi:
>
> OK, I’ll use conditions.
>
>>    Is ESP with null encryption allowed?
>
> No. That was what RFC3315 had but this document changes that.

That would suggest that the "MUST be secure" assertion in paragraph 4 is 
redundant with other normative text, and could be restated without the 
capitalized MUST.

Ben.

>
> RFC 3315:
>
>       Mode             Relay agents and servers use transport mode and
>                        ESP. The information in DHCP messages is not
>                        generally considered confidential, so 
> encryption
>                        need not be used (i.e., NULL encryption can be
>                        used).
>
> This new draft:
>
>    Encryption and authentication algorithms
>                            This document REQUIRES combined mode
>                            algorithms for ESP authenticated 
> encryption,
>                            ESP encryption algorithms, and ESP
>                            authentication algorithms as per Sections
>                            2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of [RFC7321] 
> respectively.
>                            Encryption is required as relay agents may
>                            forward unencrypted client messages as well
>                            as include additional sensitive 
> information,
>                            such as vendor-specific information (for
>                            example, [CableLabs-DHCP]) and [RFC7839].
>
> - Bernie
>
> On 4/12/17, 10:52 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     On 12 Apr 2017, at 17:31, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>
>     > Hi:
>     >
>     > For:
>     >
>     >     -3, third paragraph: "MUST exchange messages securely"
>     >     "Securely" is too ambiguous for a MUST. What specific 
> protections
>     > are
>     >     required?
>     >
>     > I believe this also was the 4th paragraph?
>
>     Yes
>
>     > I guess there are two choices here:
>     > 1. Drop “securely” as we are just specifying to use IPsec.
>     > 2. Replace “securely” with “encrypted and 
> authenticated”.
>     > Seems to be #1 might be better (as it should be unnecessary 
> given that
>     > is what this document is about).
>
>     Is ESP with null encryption allowed?
>
>     >
>     >
>     >      -3, paragraph 4:
>     >     The list starts with no context. A sentence or paragraph
>     > describing the
>     >     purpose of the list would be helpful.
>     >
>     > RFC 3315 had before this list:
>     >    Relay agents and servers that support secure relay agent to 
> server
>     > or
>     >    relay agent to relay agent communication use IPsec under the
>     >    following conditions:
>     >
>     > But I’m not sure “conditions” is the best word? Not sure 
> if
>     > there is a better word to use to describe these items?
>
>     Rules? Configuration? (But I don't think "conditions" is awful)
>
>     >
>     > Perhaps replacing the first sentence in that 4th paragraph with:
>     >
>     >   Relay agents and servers MUST exchange messages using the
>     >   IPsec mechanisms described in [RFC4301] with the conditions
>     >   as follows:
>     >
>     > And, move the remaining text in that 4th paragraph to the end of
>     > section 4 as a separate paragraph.
>     >
>     > - Bernie
>     >
>     > On 4/12/17, 4:39 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>     >     draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-04: Yes
>     >
>     >     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-dhc-relay-server-security/
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     COMMENT:
>     >     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     >     I am balloting "Yes", but I share the curiosity about 
> whether
>     > people will
>     >     really do this.
>     >
>     >     -3, third paragraph: "MUST exchange messages securely"
>     >     "Securely" is too ambiguous for a MUST. What specific 
> protections
>     > are
>     >     required?
>     >
>     >     -3, paragraph 4:
>     >     The list starts with no context. A sentence or paragraph
>     > describing the
>     >     purpose of the list would be helpful.