[i2rs] RTG-DIR QA review: draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-04.txt

Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com> Thu, 19 May 2016 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A6E12DA8C; Thu, 19 May 2016 09:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTIQrl_OLomp; Thu, 19 May 2016 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw030.noc.ntt.com (mgw030.noc.ntt.com [210.160.55.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B4312DA8E; Thu, 19 May 2016 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c0043i0.coe.ntt.com (c0043i0.nc.agilit-hosting.com [10.18.161.12]) by mgw030.noc.ntt.com (NTT Com MailSV) with ESMTP id EDFEF1C5824F; Fri, 20 May 2016 01:39:23 +0900 (JST)
Received: from C0568I0.coe.ntt.com (10.18.160.119) by c0043i0.coe.ntt.com (10.18.161.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 20 May 2016 01:39:20 +0900
Received: from C0561I0.coe.ntt.com ([169.254.1.38]) by C0568I0.coe.ntt.com ([10.18.161.254]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Fri, 20 May 2016 01:39:23 +0900
From: Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RTG-DIR QA review: draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-04.txt
Thread-Index: AdGx5fCxDq0YNmnWSrK+7ayI8V3BEQ==
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:39:22 +0000
Message-ID: <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C7FDAB7@C0561I0.coe.ntt.com>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ccmail-original-to: rtg-ads@ietf.org
x-ccmail-original-cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements.all@ietf.org, i2rs@ietf.org
x-originating-ip: [10.25.150.237]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/x3MEd2VPyzDrsHztizuhIop5Wb8>
Cc: "'rtg-dir@ietf.org'" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "'draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements.all@ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements.all@ietf.org>, "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>
Subject: [i2rs] RTG-DIR QA review: draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-04.txt
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:39:33 -0000

Hi,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for this draft.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-04.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: May 20, 2016
Intended Status: Standards Track

I am not following I2RS work closely, but in the spirit of QA review, this is OK in my understanding.
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDirDocQa

Here are my comments.

I think it is very important to have documents dedicated for security for new protocols such as I2RS protocols.
Overall, I think the document is well organized and clear what are security requirements for I2RS.

Some specific comments.

1) The document is intended to be Standards Track. I do not think it is common for requirement drafts to be Standards Track.

2) In Section 3.1, requirements are mentioned that are set in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15. 
   Some of these requirements are not directly mentioned in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15, 
   but rather implied.

   For example, draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15 mentions identifier for I2RS client,
   but does not mention identifier for I2RS agent (IMO).
   Please note that I think requirements mentioned in Section 3.1. makes sense and valid.
   I am just commenting on the way of writing.

3) I think there is dependency on requirements mentioned in this document.
   Specifically, if mutual authentication (Section 3.1), secure transport (Section 3.2),
   and role-based security (Section 3.3) are met, confidentiality (Section 3.3) and 
   integrity (Section 3.4) can be achieved (expect SEC-REQ-16: traceability requirement).

   Perhaps, it depends on in which aspects security requirements should be written
   (in terms of mechanisms or in terms of features). Again, I am just commenting
   on the way of writing.

4) This is just an edit, but in page.10, 
   "Requirements SEC-REQ-13 and SEC-REQ-14" should be
   "Requirements SEC-REQ-14 and SEC-REQ-15".

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda