Re: [dhcwg] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: (with COMMENT)

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8860B1299AE; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:07:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Hb3r0U4i9bvK; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C30C2129552; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:07:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x49so49491893qtc.2; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:07:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JVg9FL6wIHuBp/e44/kAB+F2KpumXUj9iYBD2vC8qq8=; b=iF+YP1imN57+pR1u3HCtHG4BqRn+LGwK+aat97e9qjrBzOz1FhL3P5yEGHcsiVILO/ +ddxSrB15gDMm+wKJ1YbopOziFSbR0SFzXbxVd1ZT+aDmFZMMhABkpzMEGO8AyDBAiun 4ganWJUQyoCdNPu1wMHU732VpDvPHpDDPD4YKMNeS9iMIJhmfYNxXuKax1yUG/mVVWty 373folEqkghYFQ7uQUZOKcaQcUSHa8h8sU6XJmJoIo0G6KLp6tIfWRDYYoFSFc56NRFe QsJtsEHx90Sd5Sp3zxzkXY+xwUTW2kU2X1TqbKLg4tOfyObKRSP8BD4LdPjutbqjLA6f bE/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JVg9FL6wIHuBp/e44/kAB+F2KpumXUj9iYBD2vC8qq8=; b=PSJ4IAiG09SelEezES/n38/XREaeBqITIO0NNlfXC2uMGB+0AEkvy0slWfLOtnZRgP UxwiKyMQRc+PfqIPbCy5VgbacPgrZ+cLukrslDinqYIs1CKYJzxI81RILKvzHDnEFPPh aefNqLA4UBV/POxjCPBMatfzRqICJ2wSJHbXZZvOEIU8Zn5CeCZ7rVD65Jpy9Yy0bbym s7habOjnRz2ZtzFPm//FHIbCAr8Gi7ZcpTlqtJohuoAE4NlTJH9Zg/KtZRQdcJxoUoss zPzgqcmmTG0h+SNAhcXXL5n6WpGFWGgOe4g5JVBYOAZUv0GD+CjSFGZLzOsYG5wRe3bf u6wA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKnZ9NyGcQVOtruhRkJTDrETBPBc1FgTMns0WPRkACdfL7NN/SiFZuQPXomdsSBQHCty0M6vHCE0pEckA==
X-Received: by 10.200.55.230 with SMTP id e35mr9852614qtc.30.1486066049289; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:07:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.170.30 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:07:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <FB4D79AA-4297-4BD2-B7B1-A3FC5D3DED48@cisco.com>
References: <148589004659.5913.10170408064364078877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FB4D79AA-4297-4BD2-B7B1-A3FC5D3DED48@cisco.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:07:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6Mkw3a2u8OW9Ry4VnL6fKJptrMDngvLv5yku2X_fkJ2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: kkinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/deej88F-9TkzjZIdCrMhUGcjw9Q>
Cc: "<dhc-chairs@ietf.org>" <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol@ietf.org, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:07:32 -0000

Hi Kim,

Thanks for your response, inline.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:46 PM, kkinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>; wrote:
> Kathleen,
>
> Thanks for your comments.  My responses are indented below.
>
>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: 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-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I have 2 questions that I would like to chat about and should be easy
>> enough to resolve.
>>
>> 1. I know we've discussed in the past why there is no MUST for TLS and it
>> having to do with DHCPv6 use on private networks or isolated.  Is there
>> text in one of the more recent RFCs that covers this explanation that can
>> be cited?  I'd like to make sure that's enough too.
>
>         To the best of my knowledge the justifications for both a secure
>         and an insecure mode have been kept out of the RFC's themselves,
>         and are scattered over a variety of issues raised for different
>         drafts.  A pretty succinct summary came from you for the DHCPv4
>         Active Leasequery draft (the bottom of this page):
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7724/ballot/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7724/ballot/>
>
>         I can go back to the email surrounding the DHCPv6 Active Leasequery
>         draft and try to pull that together into something longer, but
>         essentially it is going to say pretty much what you have summarized
>         at the above URL.

Hmm, it's too bad nothing has been documented on this, can we fix that
for future draft references?

>>
>> 2. The Security Considerations section says not to use Authentication
>> from RFC3316.  SHould authentication instead be done within TLS or how
>> will the session be authenticated.  Did I miss something?  I'm not
>> finding the term authentication elsewhere in the draft and can infer
>> things, but wanted to make sure since nothing is stated explicitly.
>>
>
>         Interesting point.  Yes, if you care about authentication you
>         should use TLS.  And the discussion on authentication in TLS
>         is in Section 9.1 of the DHCPv6 Active Leasequery draft, RFC
>         7653.  That section is not otherwise referenced here in the
>         failover draft.  I will add the following to the end of the
>         Security Considerations section, immediately after:
>
>>>    Authentication for DHCPv6 messages [RFC3315 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315>] MUST NOT be used to
>>>    attempt to secure transmission of the messages described in this
>>>    document.
>
>
>         "If authentication is desired, TLS SHOULD be employed
>         as described in Sections 8.2 and 9.1 of [RFC7653] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7653#section-8.2>."

Thank you.
>
>         Thanks for catching this!
>
>         Regards -- Kim
>
>
>
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen