IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Sun, 15 July 2012 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 A2F4F11E8080 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Naq7e-L6AbXV for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6F911E8072 for <dime@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so8392836pbc.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=KEbu5cCfrBk3x8kRoQaX38xij4wO8Lv1TvCyUohwHBs=; b=kery/00R3G4Kv+NkcAG1SwDazmJgMGFIO6acHmti+XeLuvRJjSmVIwHNVxTagsSv5C +d4hdlGR0E/t6oIUA208oiuymu+KXZeCNWPik7v9CbMWG1UvMlqcSHURVaA0GUoOSFz+ RiQGJJFHTuAIMvK+O89rx+nrF4t3T/p9g3i1PSIMi0S28HJh/EyDVKF/OIx9IIB+c7hN K1JZ2UscZon+KCqVBodgWedwFbN6KpiQJZW7U3RwlIxGu8l5Pia1g+nm+qDrWrDvwe4R vzvI0cj/1i5C+ves0JYMsGR8UjsUxy3Uzd9AXjEojIicUeK86a/mMa9YJup/aNEMJd6u KUWg==
Received: by 10.68.191.201 with SMTP id ha9mr16676949pbc.75.1342329348723; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ppp-115-87-66-206.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.66.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id he9sm9282498pbc.68.2012.07.14.22.15.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: lionel.morand@orange.com
In-Reply-To: <20298_1342164778_4FFFCF2A_20298_209_11_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E027B1C@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <4FFC405F.9030508@cisco.com> <4FFD41E7.5030502@cisco.com> <1342003558.14913.70.camel@gwz-laptop> <9766_1342022182_4FFDA226_9766_3407_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E0273AB@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1342157804.14913.102.camel@gwz-laptop> <20298_1342164778_4FFFCF2A_20298_209_11_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E027B1C@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-lrU661IbpO1rcN81qOLA"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:15:44 +0700
Message-ID: <1342329344.4180.9.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:15:08 -0000

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 07:32 +0000, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Glen,
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t think that asymmetrical security may be set up when
> considering diameter connections over TLS/DTLS or IPsec.  But I may be
> wrong.
> 
>  
> 
> However, as you highlight it, this should be covered in the security
> considerations of the 3588bis. I would then recommend removing the
> text from the RFC4005bis and seeing if something is missing in the
> section 13 of RFC3588bis. I think that the current text is ok but
> someone could find something missing.
> 
>  
> 
> Would it be OK?


OK w/me.

...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email