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

[Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for the follow-up Barry,

I replied today to Stephen¹s comments, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/cNizylFVKdWXu20OKKlq5gIA1KM

Hopefully my response clarifies the intention of the reference to the
[ICANN-TMCH] document.

Regards,
Gustavo

On 2/18/16, 07:17, "[e-mail] on behalf of Barry Leiba"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>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:-)
>>
>>