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 > >
- [DMM] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-d… Joseph Salowey via Datatracker
- Re: [DMM] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-d… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [DMM] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-d… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [DMM] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-d… Joseph Salowey