Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the I nternet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cr isp-iris-lwz)

Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Gray," == Gray, Eric <Eric.Gray@marconi.com> writes:
> 
>     Gray,> Sam, I thought the Security Area Directorate was limited to
>     Gray,> determining if the description of security risks is
>     Gray,> adequate and that determination of whether security is
>     Gray,> adequate - for adequately described security risks - would
>     Gray,> be up to the end consumer.
> 
> first, this document is in last call.  It's very clear to me that I
> can make a last call comment as an IETf contributor that I think the
> security is inadequate.

To be quite honest, I was unsure which hat you were wearing when you made 
your statement.  I'm also unsure if it matters.

All that being said, I agree that the security considerations section is 
missing quite a bit.  It should explain the consequences of using this 
protocol from a security point of view.  And the big thing it left out, is 
that not only should it mention that there are alternatives, but it should 
explicitly state what they are.  In this case, the security considerations 
section ought to specifically point to XPC, which is also from the CRISP wg 
and being IETF last called at the moment.  That draft is 
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-xpc-04.txt; a review of it would be helpful.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf