IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Gen-ART Review for draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09

Manish Kumar <manishkr.online@gmail.com> Thu, 13 October 2016 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <manishkr.online@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DD51296DE; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 K0FN_Ur4oeEY; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B09211293F4; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id s8so35294012pfj.2; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=z5ADYMKDgUSq5N2cqHmPwFk1HWRvOIW4zjl5k3D+d5Q=; b=XQNW1X+6g+ua3OrGiIY3gZ8DIDFDvmpgjOHQKIZzhnLe4+CVIOBfuBPj/HKcHXxkGp i0XBqkOyBdN1tQCKlaoNxfrR6R/o8C2ITNCZDlv1hM6LXvupVvekQriLGRn0gT87BsGJ ad9kdm1clhiPIQQorPfZ8q/t24GKWtQXUZD43fCDt350J4wp4a96YYq49UXE3t8OmTt3 B+/gyNbmDGDygMkAEScQ+B+IbuxaHNbbRfPvicda/j0za3TvrRv59Ko0CBr0pEL3Vtnq 7rYteNHWD2fKno8UR/ejGA6UgvCLrzS/DCLeucr8ED1RIsr2uwMF+6W2AJCVSgVScJaK GgXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=z5ADYMKDgUSq5N2cqHmPwFk1HWRvOIW4zjl5k3D+d5Q=; b=BvVvBrAIER2E9hMwVEXjC9bganu/mt23aiuwb/L7w8UAIZWira0RTQyVZQUHoIMNEe qViHTv16Cbisq5HQwCdvRu+aJkrZM+gefjZAD6lzyd1DJVQHrTkq4C4BwHZ1XzyK9H58 bnfTchAKqij0JC1gjufKvEBOUQh+N2ixclOSRQuLoKBpkUXTuyiEaYW9SK8sem9pU4Lk ykusF/TC029R82smGzjTL79jS4CCcvCVLsiWLMAYa1u6pgRYCpOy/6SnrKvM7fczUSJQ QGD0hULEtUqHJJh/CGMJfrwwPwVC4Gyersb/UeS90cnnhXIZum3YHLyWyL59qNOF5TCq OlEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkBoCfZrIHtG4+buXmS3FKu7Bhme0caAiZjpMoRJKt3STF2vIkMy1HXFogHak039g==
X-Received: by 10.99.44.212 with SMTP id s203mr8422032pgs.47.1476365457323; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:c0e0:1005::134? ([2001:420:c0e0:1005::134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y125sm19897650pfg.61.2016.10.13.06.30.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Manish Kumar <manishkr.online@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F9C17115-476F-41A7-AA9B-B58E0EFF6C8D@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B5145847-A29B-4F1C-85DB-2B55192001FF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] Gen-ART Review for draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:00:48 +0530
In-Reply-To: <C05B7CF3-3D83-4E69-B67C-976C08BB3611@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <C05B7CF3-3D83-4E69-B67C-976C08BB3611@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fdYGmOZGKfQQdxlxVha-rygUJOg>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-crypto.all@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, lisp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:31:01 -0000

I guess I did mention this before but just in case that was missed - the idea of a separate confidentiality mechanism for each encapsulation/overlay protocol when these are all IP based does seem a bit inapposite to me. At a minimum, it opens up scope for additional security holes to prey upon (as against using a standard mechanism like IPsec).

Thanks,
Manish

> On 13-Oct-2016, at 7:27 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2016-10-12
> IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-04
> IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-13
> 
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC
> 
> Though this is not an area of expertise for me, the document is clearly written, I reviewed the data structures and they appear correct, and the document seems ready to go forward. (I do find it dicey that this is an Experimental document. I understand there is history here, but this is a full-fledged protocol document and the fact that it is only required to be subjected to a cursory review for Experimental status and can pass IESG review with one "YES" and everyone else "ABSTAIN"ing seems kinda ridiculous. But that's not a reason to stop this document.)
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 9, second to last paragraph: "Otherwise, the packet has been tampered with and is discarded." The "tampered with" is probably overstating the case. I would simply say "invalid".
> 
> -- 
> Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ <http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email