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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 18 January 2012 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24B121F861A; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:01:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbBvgW3nm0jF; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:01:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D944D21F85D2; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1326909702; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=yPFQMRGxs8MmttBoGR/vkTZuesV2SagS2Fxw1UaGdFc=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=PDImRe5X0jHuUUwEC/00DpIi4mvL4pXEP/WAjv4qZeXfPihKMvUfqnMX0YarCYzmcn7OMK kvfOeBDKfycMSuOEWhxBU6VIRPMLv5T7phZ5ujlY/8+lsXwCRdqJLO1D8czCH03uBBAh8x /jmY9KLfJUJpCH1fi4LANC9RehoOeMM=;
Received: from [188.28.171.157] (188.28.171.157.threembb.co.uk [188.28.171.157]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <TxcJBAAV54ly@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:01:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4F170904.2000603@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:01:40 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
To: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <4F11E975.9070307@isode.com> <10722E0B-059E-4800-84C0-B330F397B63A@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <4F16D95A.3000006@isode.com> <89E47BB4-C228-4700-94C4-3F4ED03F99A2@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <4F1704DE.1090208@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F1704DE.1090208@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Jan 2012 18:01:50 -0000

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