Re: [homenet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10: (with COMMENT)

[Markus Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

> On 4.12.2015, at 18.51, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks for addressing my discuss about the options for 
> using DTLS. Sorry for being slow with this ballot update.
> 
> The comments below are old, I didn't check if you've
> made related changes. Happy to chat about that if you
> want, (or not if you prefer not:-)
> 
> - I agree with Kathleen's discuss that the implementation
> requirements for DTLS need to be clarified, hopefully (from my
> POV) to make that MTI but I'll leave that discussion to the
> other thread.

We did some text clarification on this I believe in -10.

> -Section 9: You should refer to HKDF and not HMAC-SHA256 though
> the reference to RFC 6234 is still right. HMAC-SHA256 itself
> is not a key derivation function, which is what you want here.

Fixed in -10 (really sad failure on my part :-p)

> - Please take a look at the secdir review [1] and respond to
> that as it raises one issue not (I think) otherwise mentioned.
> What is the effect (on a home) of one compromised hncp router?
> Perhaps you'll say that's obvious, or perhaps not, but I'm 
> interested in what you do say, in case it's not obvious:-)

There's text about that in the security considerations, I believe. (Pointer in the -09 DISCUSS thread IIRC).

Cheers,

-Markus