Re: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja, 

This was fixed in -19. The new text says the following: 

OLD:

A security mechanism at the network layer (e.g.,
      TLS) is thus adequate to provide hop-by-hop security.  In other
      words, end-to-end security is not required for DOTS protocols.

NEW:

A security mechanism at the
      transport layer (e.g., TLS) is thus adequate to provide security
      between peer DOTS agents.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mardi 5 mars 2019 12:39
> À : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG; draft-ietf-dots-
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-
> 18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Tiru, hi Med,
> 
> to catch up on this comment.
> 
> > Am 21.02.2019 um 15:23 schrieb Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> <[e-mail]>:
> >
> >>>> One editorial comment on SEC-002:
> >>>>
> >>>> "A security mechanism at the network layer (e.g.,
> >>>>     TLS) is thus adequate to provide hop-by-hop security.  In other
> >>>>     words, end-to-end security is not required for DOTS protocols."
> >>>>
> >>>> TLS is transport layer security (not network layer) and therefore
> >>>> known as providing end-to-end security while the term hop-by-hop is used
> >> for e.g.
> >>>> IPSec.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would recommend to change the wording here in order to avoid
> >>>> confusion, e.g.
> >>>>
> >>>> "A security mechanism at the transport layer (e.g.,
> >>>>     TLS) is thus adequate to provide security between different DOTS
> >>>> agents.
> >>>>     In other words, a direct security association between the server and
> >>>>     client, excluding any proxy, is not required for DOTS protocols."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> [Med] I disagree with the last part of the proposed wording. The DOTS
> >> architecture involves gateways, hence the hop-by-hop security model.
> >>
> >> This is not a technical comment. The technical content is correct.
> However, as I
> >> said above, the term hop-by-hop is associated by many people in the
> >> community with something like IPSec, while application layer gateways are
> >> rather considered as endpoints. All I'm requesting is to avoid the terms
> end-to-
> >> end and hop-by-hop in this context as it might be confusing to others.
> >
> >
> > SEC-002 is modified in version 18 to add more details to address the
> following comment from Robert Sparks (Genart review) :
> > from Paragraph 3 of SEC-002: This paragraph doesn't read as sensibly when
> you have the pictures of aggregating gateways from the architecture document
> in mind.
> > Does it constrain the types of connections that can be aggregated to those
> that share equivalent security properties? If so, it should be explicit.
> 
> 
> So, there are to point here:
> 
> 1) With the current text there is at least one mistake. It says
> 
> "A security mechanism at the network layer (e.g. TLS)…“
> 
> However, TLS is at actually at the application layer. So this needs
> rewording.
> 
> 2) The other part of my comment was simply that the use of the term „end-to-
> end“ and "hop-by-hop“ could be confusing as currently used (without much
> explanation). I suggest initially to simply not use these term, however, you
> could also say something like „hop-by-hop between an DOTS gateway and a DOTS
> client or sever“ and end-to-end directly between the DOTS client and server“,
> just to be very clear about this.
> 
> Mirja
>