Re: [Dime] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-erp-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 22 January 2013 14:22 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 29A8121F8621; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:22:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E8UN-BpACm39; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7E121F8461; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:22:33 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0MEMC51002986; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:22:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0MELj22014931; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:21:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50FEA079.7000109@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:21:45 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20130121172802.13568.6518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130121172802.13568.6518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-erp@tools.ietf.org, dime mailing list <dime@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-erp-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:22:36 -0000
draft-ietf-dime-erp authors, Please address this feedback, ideally before the IESG telechat this Thursday. Regards, Benoit > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dime-erp-16: Discuss > > 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This might be a no-brainer, but I wanted to check. RFC 6734 > says that messages containing keys MUST be protected either > via some Diameter-specific scheme (an e2e scheme is being > developed, but is not yet done, right?) or else via > mutually-authenticated TLS or IPsec. This draft says that the > security considerations of 6734 apply, which means that the > response messages MUST be protected like that if they contain > keys. So far so good. However, that leaves open the > possibility that the request or error messages defined here > could be sent unprotected, or am I mis-reading things? If not, > then any attack that could be mounted based on a cleartext > request would arguably be new here. Are there such attacks? > I'm not sure. Would it help in any case to re-state the MUST > from 6734 here but to also include the request messages that > (all going well) cause keys to be sent in responses (and error > messages) and say that all that has to use the same e.g. TLS > session or involve the same entities? (If e.g. TLS was only > turned on for responses, then I'd start to be worried about > the kind of problem that caused us to do the TLS > re-negotiation fix, RFC 5746, but I've not tried to figure out > if there's a real new attack yet, maybe the authors thought > that through already?) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - I think it'd be clearer to say TBD1 everywhere you mean that > rather than sometimes say <Diameter ERP>. Also, are those > angle brackets missing in the 1st para of section 7? > > - Ought there be a space in the name of the TBD4 value in 9.1? > (I guess not since its not in 10.3) > > > >
- Re: [Dime] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-iet… Benoit Claise