IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-06.txt> (Security Considerations for Transient Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network Protocols) to Best Current Practice

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 11 December 2020 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE813A0B0C; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:23:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 mefLwS5_QkJ1; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E90E13A0AF8; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:23:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4105; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1607689392; x=1608898992; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=nDg1TdAEbRzsf+WtddFl9sDrUpjM1huPcsBWB5yWZPQ=; b=AQ4CJVW2SFfpK/CDdwc+rgV3XeHOfXycTlqdMneWj0LqN49GC3CVfR3y bj9uYO73s3sXiUMHrAulMUwubOIAglNK9t9v/IWVWls3BEHyvrpXibXbf auXVJTur3mF0C+BdPjKF3rln90YZG9PzSkRsjkDRA6hQA6O41nmyW+Chd w=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0BPAABKZNNfjBbLJq1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGBfQUBAQsBgSJYgXsBIBKEbYkEiAUoh2uMLoYfgXwEBwEBAQoDAQEvBAEBhEoCggAmNgcOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAYZGhXMBBAEjVhALBAotBwICVwaDOQGCZiCtP3aBMoVXhG0QgTgBgVKMD4IAgTgMEIIgBy4+hCaDLzOCLASBVIFTgjw/j32MEJwagn6DJYE3lmsDH5J4j0KxOoNtAgQGBQIVgV0HKoFZMxoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDY47HW4BCI0cQANnAgYBCQEBAwmKVwEB
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,411,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="31767984"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 Dec 2020 12:23:07 +0000
Received: from [10.61.244.60] ([10.61.244.60]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BBCN6Lu006480 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:23:07 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <65B53688-149D-4419-B65B-D1A32E2E3664@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD7BC7CB-C275-4BB1-885B-93F95F16FEE5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:23:06 +0100
In-Reply-To: <22194c0b-c65a-287a-2306-16d2e873a391@si6networks.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations@ietf.org, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <160735373732.25981.15176977559155786235@ietfa.amsl.com> <F438198F-34E2-4C9F-A32F-ACD58D9A6734@vigilsec.com> <9823c064-5d85-f141-fa8d-60abb7f70576@si6networks.com> <E1B75BDF-47A7-4791-B161-DB66DB706713@cisco.com> <22194c0b-c65a-287a-2306-16d2e873a391@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.244.60, [10.61.244.60]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/aK-V1Y65qFIlVds2IEpZ1-Fa4aU>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-06.txt> (Security Considerations for Transient Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network Protocols) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:23:14 -0000

Hi Fernando,

Thanks for your quick response.  I’d say that we are pretty much in line.  One additional comment:

> 
> Note that we do *not* target service ports. Those ports are not "transient numeric identifiers", because the server-side port has overloaded semantics (it identifies the service) -- so it *has* to be a specific value. Only if, say, a system were using something ala e.g. SRV records, servers could use "transient numeric identifiers”.


Along with considering perhaps a tweak or two based on the previous message, I hope we can collaborate over time on the privacy aspects of service discovery that might further reduce the need for the port registry.

Eliot

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status