[ipwave] Security review
Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <benamar73@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2322A120141 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.453
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 iCJib-_1sd-u for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (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 84443120058 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id d24so11981859ljg.8 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=T3LPlve2uB2E6OGVl63gvlXIsosGmVHkYa4K4lHefiI=; b=HlEVQb1dnZe4TtdvZEE68W3uMKClCvnIVDVYwIO9IKOnmsr0UDM8v2+ox4/JREiKAr b5kwSmLijIYTAlYW0PvNyc8NZC6Ndn/ZchqpZe0qz4Jx1c1RPt+kMrmBrxkGOzH93W/W hkD68Xi4tK/i58XNycBhpKazH9fqYhHZbkHFL4AqeVjyU3tUNGOhA42MCv9Fv1onQ+Ql eW1xEKAc6krgPLTeQW487aZuJZO8tVi0Z3phSQB7m6XZ7fnKvIsie7SbrKakAWUhMrDX geNb/xmfwDYGHVVvfuT6fbKSNUpGm//SpvfiYTyuKhCKOV9FbPOkcyZgo+xztHIJRSgX SOWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=T3LPlve2uB2E6OGVl63gvlXIsosGmVHkYa4K4lHefiI=; b=XxUfIb1/lMbYlTjLcUO+XwteZu3EjMRFVMayDwA/qIseAV9KwRVRkxzRQET2Wj+wXz ERdeb9o2zvV7sR22muHohnx0sTKnJvJhtZQ4pd3Bzuw9fx7y4ITfs4D5XPHR5fG7WbNl rrT6xPmS1bXcjp6bIRAHtUexyYYwUffW1Vt+PI2KWzh9VEvFGf2gMyJ/ACeqNv6POVH6 ov3UHbmDdb4P36t5w8UgQh9YdnswswvkeJ8YXyBAWrSlsvooLTVLq5+Zyq1fCgtD8ooo 2Bd64HNPxdSRRnJIR3kaLCpASU4jK9bEfxeQpdWmhXqGDFomcK+FRhppiW5B3kuinaNn VLrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVNYvAeARyJvzE9lzHZoT2jCu+d1N7iZDuhvO4dPDIB07fAhm6U y26hatwTTSQFDEFr6CKp/dtksugabYWsxnhNcIx6CuwiDcA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyLAMtY4uLOVoRBCesY4QoVzyzCMBVyNgPKJ8Uq7yN5uRfcXvJGmJKlgXaCLlpR5AmjOpseWG0pjgluLy9TtU4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:150:: with SMTP id c16mr2267266ljd.193.1562710137206; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:08:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMugd_WDnvWG33LgXgC7DgK0whOBvfQ8yMogWKh_FXo4O56Npg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d7959058d46cead"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/uKrW5e8w-EcBnTBwsvQTY7a3uqg>
Subject: [ipwave] Security review
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 22:09:01 -0000
Hi IPwavers, As you may have noticed, our draft is now in the ballot process. We got the following 'Discuss' comments: The AD (Roman Danyliw) is asking 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”? This sentence has been added during the initial review process befor the IESG stage. I just propose to remove it. Best regards Nabil Benamar ------------------- نبيل بنعمرو
- [ipwave] Security review Nabil Benamar