[Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-stir-oob-06

Suhas Nandakumar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 04 December 2019 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC8B1200A3; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:09:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suhas Nandakumar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stir-oob.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.111.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <157549014531.11194.2020475510400637531@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:09:05 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/YnDIPZoiAMatA3R7HWejcySTaRw>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-stir-oob-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 20:09:06 -0000

Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar
Review result: Ready with Nits

Summary: The document is a well written summary and covers the ideas clearly.
I don't have major concerns  but do have few minor concerns and Nits that might
help with some clarifications

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
1. Section 7.2 para 2 states : "The CPS responds with any such PASSporTs
(assuming they exist)." Given CPS will always respond with a dummy PASSporT,
the statement in the parentheses doesn't hold. (Referring to section 6.2)

2. Section 7.4 Call flow: "Call from CS (forged caller-id info)" . Since its
the attacker making the call here, we probably need to change it as "Call from
Attacker (forged caller-id info)".

3. Section 7.5 has the following:

Sign(K_cps, K_temp)
Sign(K_temp, E(K_receiver, PASSporT)) --->

This is a clarification question for my understanding. What happens when
one of the 2 messages sent gets lost when storing the PASSporT. Should we need
to add any clarifications to that extent ?

4. Section 7.5 last para: clarification question
Since PASSporT is encrypted at CPS , how is it aged out based on the "iat"
value. Is it a function to VS to age out PASSporTs at a given CPS ?

Nits/editorial comments:

1. Section 5.2 para 1: would be nice to add reference to Section 10
2. Section 7.2 Call Flow: "Store PASSporT" --> "Store Encrypted PASSporT"
3. Section 7.2 Call Flow: "Ring phone with callerid" --> "Ring phone with
verified callerid" 4. Section 8.2 Step 3: "number number" --> "number" 5
Section 8.3 para 2: "Per Step 3" --> "Per Step 3 of Section 8.1"