Re: [ippm] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-01

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Adam,
Thanks so much for your review.   We will look at the "TBD" in "5.3 Security Goals for Authentication". 
As the draft (and implementation) progresses,  we will keep everyone posted. 
Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
[phone] 

    On Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 02:07:53 PM PDT, Adam Montville via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 Reviewer: Adam Montville
Review result: Not Ready

I apologize for missing the deadline for this early review.

I'm saying the draft is not yet ready primarily because it's early, and there
is a "TBD" in "5.3 Security Goals for Authentication". That said, I'm not sure
there's much to add here beyond the communicating parties being mutually
authenticated.

The security considerations section addresses authentication by stating, "the
Authentication and Authorization of Clients and Servers is thus delegated to
the respective Organizations." I would add that the selected encryption scheme
(HPKE incorporating KEM, KDF, and AEAD) should cover this requirement.

I'll also mention that authentication is mentioned in 5.3 but seemingly ignored
in the list of things PDMv3 DOH needs to consider (see the middle of page 12).

Otherwise, the security considerations section covers the relevant threat
scenarios reasonably well, and the document seems to provide a methodology to
provide delegated trust, as claimed.


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm