[ipwave] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-49: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few items per the text in the Security Considerations (Section 5):

(1) Section 5.  Per “A previous work at SAVI WG identifies some threats
[RFC6959], while SeND presented in [RFC3971] and [RFC3972] is a solution
against address theft but it is complex and not deployed.”, a few questions:

** What specific threats from RFC6959 are of concern?  Which mitigations for
them are being proposed?

** Why mention SeND if it is “complex and not deployed”?

(2) Section 5.  Per “More IETF protocols are available in the toolbox of the IP
security protocol designer.  Some ETSI protocols related to security protocols
in ITS are described in [ETSI-sec-archi].”:

** Are there specific protocols to mention here?  Would they be
different/OCB-specific than what was already noted in the beginning of the
section -- “Any security mechanism as the IP layer or above that may be carried
out …”?

** What specific ETSI protocols are being recommended from [ETSI-sec-archi]?

(3) Section 5.2.  Per “An Interface ID SHOULD be of length specified in other
documents”, what other documents?

(4) Section 5.3  I’m having trouble following this section – is this a
discussion of a threat or mitigation?  The references to Section 4.4 and 5.0
didn’t clarity this for me.

** What is meant by the drivers’ identity in this case?  What is the pseudonym
scheme is being used to protect it or what requirements are being set for it?

** What are the specific challenges of concern around pseudo-anonymization
approaches to which an allusion is made?

** Who is the trusted third parted needed?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) Section 1.  Per “The resulting stack inherits from IPv6 over Ethernet
[RFC2462], but operates over …”, what exactly is being inherited?  What does
“inherited” mean in this case?

(6) Section 4.3.  Per “Among these types of addresses only the IPv6 link-local
addresses can be formed using an EUI-64 identifier, in particular during
transition time”, the meaning of the “in particular during transition time
isn’t clear to me.

(7) Section 5.  Per “The OCB operation is stripped off of …”, is this sentence
saying that OCB operations doesn’t use 802.11 link layer security mechanisms,
or does the OCB operation actively remove (i.e., strips) 802.11 link layer
security mechanisms?  I’m getting caught up in the use of “stripped off”.

(8) Section 5, Per “Any attacker can therefore just sit in the near range of
vehicles ... and performs attacks without needing to physically break any
wall”, I’d recommend revising this sentence to reflect that it isn’t just
vehicles and that active attacks are possible:

NEW:
Therefore, an attacker can sniff or inject traffic while within range of a
vehicle or IP-RSU (by setting an interface card’s frequency to the proper
range).

(9) Section 5.  What is “protected 802.11” mentioned in “Such a link is less
protected …”?

(10) Section 5.2.  SHA256 needs a reference.

(11) Editorial Nits
** Table of Contents.  There is odd spacing in the title of Appendix C

** Section 1.  Typo.  s/Appendicies/Appendices/

** Section 1.  Typo.  s/Concretly/Concretely/

** Section 1.  Editorial.  s/[RFC1042], [RFC2464] ./[RFC1042 and [RFC2464]./

** Multiple sections. Editorial, to make an RFC citation a reference. 
s/RFC2464/[RFC2464]/ and s/RFC 7217/[RFC7217]/

** Section 4.5.  Typo.  s/.A  A future/.  A future/

** Section 4.6. Typo.  s/links; The/links.  The/

** Section 5.1.  Typo.  s/Futhermore/Furthermore/

** Section 5.1.  Typo.  s/pricavy/privacy/

** Section 5.2. Typo.  s/admninistered/ administered/

** Appendix B.  s/Ammendment/Amendment/

** Appendix H.  Duplicate word. s/section Section 2/Section 2/

** Appendix I.  Typo.  s/specificed/specified/

** Appendix I. Typo.  s/Moreoever/Moreover/