MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:49:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJKTA9QXpm8JDzBdPKFuHGazqarHBryV7k3hZA+ObKjRCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: SecDir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
To: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme.all@ietf.org, 
 "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UB9ROWxCV8Uu5Fdc3kYrPvumEtE>
Cc: art@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

Thanks for finally getting this through.  I think the document is
ready with nits; my detailed comments are below.

It=E2=80=99s a tiny thing, but where the abstract says =E2=80=9Creplacing t=
he
definition in RFC 1738,=E2=80=9D one may be led to think (I was) that 1738 =
has
a more robust definition than it does.  D=E2=80=99you mind changing that to
something like this: =E2=80=98This document provides a full specification o=
f
the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the
very brief definition in Section 3.10 of RFC 1738.=E2=80=99

The Security Considerations section is well thought out; thanks.  The
only thing I can think of that might be added is a few words about
non-local file URIs.  Section 3 says two significant things that
should be highlighted in a security consideration:
1. A file URI can be dependably dereferenced or translated to a local
file path only if it is local.
2. This specification neither defines nor forbids any set of
operations that might be performed on a file identified by a non-local
file URI.

Given those two things, I think it would be worth explicitly saying
that treating a non-local URI as local or otherwise attempting to
perform local operations on a non-local URI can result in security
problems.

Matthew=E2=80=99s name and address will be on the RFC, of course, but is th=
at
really the best choice for contact information for the scheme in the
registry?  Or would it be better to point people to =E2=80=9CApplications a=
nd
Real-Time Area <art@ietf.org>=E2=80=9D ?  In general, we seem to have mixed
feelings about listing individuals as contact points for things
registered by working group documents (and I fall on the =E2=80=9Cavoid usi=
ng
specific individuals=E2=80=9D side, because individuals often come and go o=
ver
relatively short time).

The =E2=80=9CReferences=E2=80=9D in the registry template should just be =
=E2=80=9Cthis RFC=E2=80=9D,
and this RFC number will appear in the registry.

A bit of process geekery:
In the Acknowledgments, you say=E2=80=A6
   This specification is derived from [RFC1738], [RFC3986], and
   [I-D.hoffman-file-uri] (expired); the acknowledgements in those
   documents still apply.

I don=E2=80=99t imagine there=E2=80=99s actually text from 1738 in here (is=
 there?).
How much text is here from 3986?  I=E2=80=99m not talking about concepts, b=
ut
actual text that was brought over.  If there is, have you made sure
that all authors of the documents you got text from agree to the terms
of BCPs 78 & 79 ?  If not, there might need to be a pre-5378
disclaimer in the boilerplate.  I suspect we=E2=80=99re OK, because we=E2=
=80=99re
mostly talking about Larry, Roy, and TimBL, but I just wanted to
check.

(I personally think the acknowledgments text above is a bit much,
unless you=E2=80=99ve really copied a lot of text from those RFCs.  But tha=
t=E2=80=99s
your section to do with as you think best.)

References:
I don=E2=80=99t think BCP35 is normative, and I=E2=80=99d move it to inform=
ative.
I don=E2=80=99t think UAX15 is normative, and I=E2=80=99d move it to inform=
ative.
I think UTF-8 is normative (as you have it), but UNICODE is not.
Others might disagree with that.
I think I would make RFC 6454 normative, only because it=E2=80=99s listed a=
s a
reference for =E2=80=9Cthe most secure option=E2=80=9D in the Security Cons=
iderations.

Barry