Re: [eppext] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Gustavo, we need some discussion here to resolve Stephen's issues
(which other ADs are agreeing with), and also Ben's comments and any
others that are out there.  Can you please respond soon?

Barry

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Section 7 points to [ICANN-TMCH] for signature validation policy
> (I think, not quite sure). I did a quick scan (so I might have
> missed it) of that document and did not find any mention of
> security or signature validation, so what is an implementer
> supposed to do, over and above just checking the cryptographic
> correctness of the XMLDSIG? Note1: I'm not asking that all of
> the details of how to construct a PKI for this functionality be
> documented here, somewhere else is fine, but it doesn't seem to
> be in [ICANN-TMCH] that I can see, so I don't know what I'd have
> to implement, that'd get interop. Note2: I'm also not asking for
> a US-DoD-scale super-huge PKI or RPKI to be specified here,
> something simpler should work.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - Please see the secdir review [1] which raises a number of
> significant points (including the DISCUSS above) and which
> hasn't as far as I've seen gotten a response (apologies if I
> missed that).
>
>    [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06248.html
>
> - "precudle" nice:-)
>
>