Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-05

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 18/01/2012 17:43, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> On 18/01/2012 16:16, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
  [...]
>>>>>    RID systems MUST provide for the verification of the identity of a
>>>>>    RID system peer presenting a valid and trusted certificate, by
>>>>>    verifying the fully-qualified domain name and service name from 
>>>>> the
>>>>>    DNS SRV record, if available, against that stored in the 
>>>>> certificate,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am confused: this is the first time DNS SRV records are mentioned
>>>>> (BTW, they need a Normative Reference). Earlier text seem to 
>>>>> suggest that DNS SRV are not used to locate protocol endpoints. If 
>>>>> RID is using DNS SRV, then information about how it is used is 
>>>>> missing from the document.
>>>> It doesn't. Was trying to point out here that SRV must be matched 
>>>> if (for deployment-specific reasons) it was present. This is simply 
>>>> a poor attempt at citing 6125.
>>> SRV-ID are really only applicable to protocols which are using DNS 
>>> SRV. So I would have prohibited them... But if you want to keep 
>>> using them, you need to specify what is the service name you would 
>>> expect in them.
>> Indeed. We don't, so, removed. Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> Actually, since the binding between RID and a PKI is better defined 
>> in rfc6045-bis, 6046-bis now refers to it, as follows:
>>
>>     Each RID system SHOULD authenticate its peers via a PKI as detailed
>>     in Section 9.3 of [I-D.ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis].
>>
>> Would this address the concern?
> Let me check.

So the text in rfc6045bis seems to suggest that all server certificates 
will be verified based on some prior arrangement. Is my understanding 
correct?

>> Many thanks, best regards,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>>>>    as in Section 6 of [RFC6125].
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC 6125 allows for various options and this paragraph doesn't 
>>>>> seem to cover all of them. I suggest you check Section 13.7.1.2.1 
>>>>> of RFC 6120 for an example of what should be specified (ignore 
>>>>> XmppAddr identifier type, as it is very XMPP specific). For X.509 
>>>>> SANs which are disallowed, you should say so.
>>>> Will do. (6125 is missing something here, a guide for using it in 
>>>> other specs...)
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Brian