Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
>> On 9/30/15 12:49 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-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-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think I recognise almost all of the security/privacy text we
>>> ended up with for the dhcpv6 equivalent - thanks for getting all
>>> that right!
>>> 
>>> For Alissa and Ben - I'd be happier too if only secure mode
>>> existed here, but there was an argument (which I've forgotten)
>>> as to why we needed the insecure one - I think it boiled down to
>>> doing it on the same machine or that they'd do it no matter what
>>> the RFC says. (But I may be mis-remembering.) So while I agree
>>> with your points on that, I'm not sure we're (i.e. we as IESG)
>>> right to fight the battle again over this one when they're
>>> making this the same as the dhcpv6 one we already approved.
>>> Anyway, if you do fight the battle over and win, we should
>>> probably ensure any resulting edits also get done to the dhcpv6
>>> equivalent spec which is with the RFC editor still.
> 
> When the DHCPv6 equivalent draft came to the IESG, one of the authors
> responded to Stephen's point on the insecure mode with this:
> 
>        We did not consider RFC 7258 as particularly relevant to this
>    protocol since we expect that the requestors of this protocol
>    will be processing elements that sit next to the DHCP server
>    and would have direct access to the DHCP server's database (if
>    the DHCP server allowed direct access to its database).
> 
> It is pretty clear that the use of this protocol is protected via
> physical location and access controls.

That makes perfect sense.  I added a comment to my no objection to explain why I didn't have an issue.  This in my opinion is sensible risk management, but I have been in the position to make this sort of decision when in operational roles leading security for organizations.

Thanks,
Kathleen 

> 
> Regards,
> Brian
>