Re: [Dime] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Yuval Lifshitz <[e-mail]> wrote:

> *inline*
>
> On Thursday, May 24, 2018, 4:58:44 p.m. GMT+3, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Yuval Lifshitz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> more inline
>
> On Thursday, May 24, 2018, 4:18:06 p.m. GMT+3, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Yuval Lifshitz <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> *inline*
>
> On Thursday, May 24, 2018, 6:41:17 a.m. GMT+3, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: 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 <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-dime- rfc4006bis/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis/>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------
> COMMENT:
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------
>
> Rich version of this review at:
> https://mozphab-ietf. devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3353
> <https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3353>
>
>
> I only gave this a light read. Some minor comments below.
>
> COMMENTS
> S 1.2.
> >        deduction of credit from the end user account when service is
> >        completed and refunding of reserved credit that is not used.
> >
> >      Diameter Credit-control Server  A Diameter credit-control server
> acts
> >        as a prepaid server, performing real-time rating and credit-
> >        control.  It is located in the home domain and is accessed by
>
> a definition of "home domain" would be useful
>
> *[yuval] base spec define "home realm" we should probably change to that*
>
> S 2.
> >      credit-control application.
> >
> >      When an end user requests services such as SIP or messaging, the
> >      request is typically forwarded to a service element (e.g., SIP
> Proxy)
> >      in the user's home domain.  In some cases it might be possible that
> >      the service element in the visited domain can offer services to the
>
> also define visited domain, or at least point to a reference.
>
> *[yuval] base spec defined "local realm" for that. will fix*
>
> S 3.1.
> >                                  [ CC-Correlation-Id ]
> >                                  [ User-Equipment-Info ]
> >                                  [ User-Equipment-Info-Extension ]
> >                                  *[ Proxy-Info ]
> >                                  *[ Route-Record ]
> >                                  *[ AVP ]
>
> Please expand AVP on first use.
>
> *[yuval] it is in the base spec*
>
>
> I'm sure it is, but you should still expand it.
>
> [yuval] sure we can (it would be a bit awkward though, in the world of
> "Diameter" it will be like explaining what TCP stands for...)
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=7322#section-3.6
>
> *[yuval] in the list, but not marked as "well known". OTOH, that document
> gives some freedom to the RFC editor. Given that the first couple of
> occurrences of AVP in the spec are in titles and inside ABNF, there isn't a
> reasonable place to expand that. If someone tries to read any Diameter
> application spec, without the base one they would probably run into other
> issues as well*
>

 Put it in the glossary at the start.

-Ekr


>
> S 4.
> >      control client requests credit authorization from the credit-control
> >      server prior to allowing any service to be delivered to the end
> user.
> >
> >      In the first model, the credit-control server rates the request,
> >      reserves a suitable amount of money from the user's account, and
> >      returns the corresponding amount of credit resources.  Note that
>
> Sorry, reserves the balance or the amount reserved?
>
> *[yuval] not sure what is not clear?*
>
>
> As I said above, do you return the balance or do you return the amount of
> credit that has been reserved.
>
> [yuval] return the reserved amount
>
>
> OK, the text should say it.
>
> *[yuval] ok. will rephrase*
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> S 14.
> >
> >      Even without any modification to the messages, an adversary can
> >      eavesdrop on transactions that contain privacy-sensitive information
> >      about the user.  Also, by monitoring the credit-control messages one
> >      can collect information about the credit-control server's billing
> >      models and business relationships.
>
> I'm having trouble reading these two paragraphs. Are they about what
> happens if TLS isn't used?
>
> *[yuval] will clarify. see here: *https://github.com/
> lbertz02/rfc4006bis/issues/51
> <https://github.com/lbertz02/rfc4006bis/issues/51>
>
>
> This doesn't seem dramatically clearer. What sort of an adversary can do
> that?
>
> [yuval] in some cases e2e security is not possible, this is what this
> section is addressing, the github issue is to clarify that
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/ listinfo/dime
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>
>
>
>
>