Re: [Fwd: RE: WG Last-Call (WGLC) for comments: draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-08]

Michael Noisternig <mnoist@cosy.sbg.ac.at> Fri, 22 August 2008 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9C53A68EF for <ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.834
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FVvkNrEB+hty for <ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCE73A6AFB for <ipdvb-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m7MMoH3M012412 for <ipdvb-subscribed-users@dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:50:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id m7MMoGMp012411 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:50:16 +0100 (BST)
X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f
Received: from puma.cosy.sbg.ac.at (puma.cosy.sbg.ac.at [IPv6:2001:628:408:102::30:0]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m7MMo8If012389 for <ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:50:08 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [172.16.10.187] (85-124-63-18.static.xdsl-line.inode.at [85.124.63.18]) by puma.cosy.sbg.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F524228ED3 for <ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:50:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <48AF4299.5000204@cosy.sbg.ac.at>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:50:01 +0200
From: Michael Noisternig <mnoist@cosy.sbg.ac.at>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: WG Last-Call (WGLC) for comments: draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-08]
References: <48AF04BB.9090901@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <48AF04BB.9090901@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk

Hi Laurence,

also many thanks for your review and comments. Replies are inline.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Laurence.Duquerroy@esa.int [mailto:Laurence.Duquerroy@esa.int]
> *Sent:* Thu 7/31/2008 13:02
> *To:* Cruickshank HS Dr (CCSR)
> *Cc:* gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Stephane.Combes@esa.int
> *Subject:* RE: WG Last-Call (WGLC) for comments: 
> draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-08
> 
> 
> Dear Haitham,
> 
> I reviewed the draft this morning. It is now in a very good shape. I
> just have a couple of comments, that you can find below:
> 
>     * page 12 - in the case 2 description: I don't understand why req2
>       (protection of NPA address) is associated with MAC, digital
>       signatures or TESLA...Is it not included with the Case 1
>       requirements?

Yes, you're right, we removed Req2 from Case 2.

>     * page 12 - in the case 2 description: " In terms of outsiders
>       attacks, group authentication using MAC should provide the same
>       level of security ": as what ? I am not sure that the meaning of
>       this sentence is very clear.

Agreed, not very clear. We'll just say "In terms of outsider attacks,
group authentication using MACs can provide the required level of
security (Req 3 and 5)." now.

>     * page 21 - A.1.2: Identity protection is not included in the list
>       of security feautres that the new security ext header will
>       provide. However in section 5 - p 13, this feature belongs to the
>       base profile.

Yes, added.

> 
> 
> And a couple of corrections (between dash)
> 
>     * page 4 : the all-zeros PID as well as other PID values * - *are  -
>       reserved
>     * page 14: the security threats and requirement-s- presented in this
>       document
>     * page 20: (shown as the key Management Group server block in figure
>       2 - ) -
>     * page 22 : GCKS : the signification of this acronym is missing

Ok, fixed that.

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Laurence
> 
> Laurence Duquerroy
> ESA / ESTEC TEC-ETC
> Laurence.Duquerroy@esa.int
> +31 (0)71 565 6312

Michael