Re: [Dime] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 01 June 2016 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CE912B015; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 PB9JpizyM3-R; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7178312B00A; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3810BE35; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:40:40 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01Rw4bsqnUOP; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:40:39 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0716BE32; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:40:38 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1464806439; bh=Oj4S+lbQjajLfgXzPY0mKLSrA0S8KCxFlo0QlGq9Ryk=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Eb9lwIZtBn8e+vrqpBOq8mN8ykSkAOgm58PWSCmChxC86rQPYggGlFFggDX88u7PN RJbxbaA20a98lH1gLRa39Zvb2hbbr3fB06bg6AdfWKFZSxLRgxSfET9RbiT3megGH6 2LD7Mysy5LiSqYO6L54oDU1UuPaUDADSJ56XLncc=
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <20160601152314.16196.25416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e4f3422d-50ed-cdd0-aed4-00d4cdf14e40@gmail.com> <574F2A47.3060306@cs.tcd.ie> <4DFB44FC-3130-4080-9EC6-5CA8E82A9691@nostrum.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <574F2C26.9000701@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:40:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DFB44FC-3130-4080-9EC6-5CA8E82A9691@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060903040403010605000303"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/SSQEHfGJjl1LJvYwefsTLpLubJw>
Cc: dime-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:40:44 -0000


On 01/06/16 19:37, Ben Campbell wrote:
> I may not have been clear, but my concern was not that I though there
> should be a non-repudiation requirement. It was that the text seemed to
> have an implicit one, and if that was intended, it should be explicit.
> 
> I'm also perfectly happy for the draft to not have such a requirement
> (implicit or otherwise.)

I'd also prefer to see no mention of N-R. And I'm surprised I missed
the use of the term in my AD review - I usually whine when I see that;-)

S

> 
> Ben.
> 
> On 1 Jun 2016, at 14:32, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
>> Thanks all for the discussion. I've one thing to add... as you
>> may detect, it's a thing about which I'm not neutral:-)
>>
>> On 01/06/16 19:14, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>
>>>> - Requirement 7: This (along with some text in the introduction)
>>>> implies
>>>> that non-repudiation is a requirement. If so, that should be listed and
>>>> elaborated as a requirement.
>>>
>>> I believe tnon-repudiation is already covered by the requirement #2,
>>> which says "..integrity, and data-origin authentication."
>>
>> I'll put a DISCUSS on this if anyone adds non-repudiation as
>> a requirement! :-)
>>
>> Non-repudiation is not a network service, even though it has been
>> described as one for decades. (Blame the security addendum to the
>> OSI reference model - afaik, that's where it started;-)
>>
>> If one wants to provide what was claimed to be provided by
>> non-repudiation then one needs signed timestamps for pretty much
>> everything (and with counter signing for algorithm changes) and
>> distributed logs with signed events (and log integrity) for things
>> that happen at all nodes, and much else. None of that is useful for
>> Diameter and it therefore ought not be mentioned. Even were it
>> claimed to be useful, one would need to define a whole bunch of
>> new AVPs to try (but fail) to provide that fictional service.
>>
>> Jouni is IMO correct that data origin authentication and data
>> integrity are the network security services that are relevant
>> and that can be offered here.
>>
>> All that said, this is likely just a terminology thing, since
>> some people do still use the NR term when they mean integrity
>> and DAO with signatures, but it is *really* not a good idea to
>> add the NR term to the mix as it has distracted and misdirected
>> folks for literally decades and going back to that would be a
>> bad plan.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>