[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"
- [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-st… Suhas Nandakumar via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] [stir] Genart telechat review of dr… Alissa Cooper