Re: [DMM] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Mon, 04 November 2019 03:54 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FCE120878 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:54:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 hiPYJg_TrLcT for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31EB3120848 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id h2so8627473qto.1 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:54:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Pq7nWTH53QfNHeZqya4ydbm0u7cyU4EiK4Uy7pcEDFI=; b=T9Fv4d1FGIlKKuR+BghkmoZt8UJUfoQXyllzJelxchZPcIQjALsmqaR67eD1b1MkEF u5bF6Rtj8w8+rffA2BJTjNudNHPp2iNa850X1qIm8ZiYjWUM++cm4YleO2lqXrDcmyzj 7c5bKO6YMHlA3dhXUc7Oaox43PjY5p/iuJq7ht/ww8Vel87kyPHGHRrADIYa1jfbNWrw iKKO0LJV8CsaZsO8j+mlyAdo6bkHfo4LUROZYdVuji88AmbOWeH9GxO04mLnBn+zycJQ qMguPvgF/7bUHLujqEGxOAHNZxPyuai77znwclMY5mr6/Yer1DjteF/XAs4lMxSZjssK RhPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Pq7nWTH53QfNHeZqya4ydbm0u7cyU4EiK4Uy7pcEDFI=; b=qUJ859RWCym74AvGZKuIYX2aZi5aOz9DbWRONN/s/Jj+QHLnCWOlJo17kFrluP7rCK IK/F1kTWtSYN+Ld2qw/ZXnCXabwl7FLVxXoDPAjlA34uGSzcMMrb+fRRa9DU9RWqexY+ N9FL3+/rWvIhlm0076W+YzFFwcvJZkgCD4vCc69/pd7GWVOLZO9GFBdnGx3T4jHqvhxs Bqjc5MXPiqFDa9GZ9woo/fLS9oOaQAWBh55aQMZg1T1Wkc2mG4b3KFDfgcUbKPR5NW1M GZA3lMmj0NK4CLshwr+ubVZ24ci1wgkirdWVeNnlPgBgNCZx8SsH8x0dKDSd+HIUrsZK RFJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWoq9raCLYPPRnzjKukQjVkgsmmRk5qPvKACizjGKRFsV9E52Pg e5SqbdpVmmTB1UeovDgiLtwkUfsWLqAQwIROsgSPFNWW
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxWLhOfHUc1tl46FY/aD+dr76XdhOvuPqmx77yMuXSkNM2gU3A0ZMM6JTavE43wfWrRPdxvOUgOaOB4aS5BnYQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9838:: with SMTP id c53mr20760057qvd.250.1572839659936; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:54:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157100555733.20750.5488529297693995498@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALypLp9+j9pAMdhOJKfFoQrC_4joi7_Mcx0AP04aWb3Wob=NwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp-zhYdr1cpQJho_v1wO=K8UM40LGe0k5QqNg6BSsXuGdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALypLp-zhYdr1cpQJho_v1wO=K8UM40LGe0k5QqNg6BSsXuGdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:54:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoBU4iQErR48_C6RqHF=-SWCwQUgSZYn0earWsgBuFEcNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038335805967d4542"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/42IlZBLdsgmlsiKNqXH9hb9Rf6c>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 03:54:24 -0000

Hi Carlos,

THanks for addressing my comments.  I don't have any further issues with
the document.

Cheers,

Joe

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:06 AM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
wrote:

> Dear Joseph,
>
> We've just posted a new revision (-14) addressing all your comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Carlos
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:12 PM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <
> cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>
>> Dear Joseph,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the review. We will improve the security consideration
>> section by including also some of the considerations mentioned in draft-
>> ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04, and also by better scoping current text.
>> We believe we don't need much more in terms of text, as the document is
>> informational, and the actual security mechanisms for a distributed
>> anchoring solution would depend on the specifics of that solution. We can
>> also better reflect that rational in the text.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:25 AM Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <
>> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Reviewer: Joseph Salowey
>>> Review result: Has Issues
>>>
>>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>>> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
>>> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
>>> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
>>> these comments just like any other last call comments.
>>>
>>> The summary of the review is the document has issues with the security
>>> considerations section.
>>>
>>> The security consideration section is extremely light.  It mainly
>>> contains text
>>> from RFC 7333.  It seems that there should be more discussion of
>>> security as it
>>> relates to the different configurations and different cases.   Do each
>>> of these
>>> cases have the same security properties and require the same types of
>>> security
>>> controls?
>>>
>>> Are the IPSEC recommendations mentioned in the security considerations of
>>> draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04 applicable for all the cases?
>>>  Should
>>> these be pointed out in the security considerations section?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution":
>> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
>>
>>
>
> --
> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution":
> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
>
>