Re: [manet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

I have no concerns with matching the text to the boilerplate. There
is one extra paragraph in addition to the minimal differences that
Alvaro pointed out:

"MANET technology is often deployed to support communications of
emergency services or military tactical applications. In these
applications, it is imperative to maintain the proper operation of the
communications network and to protect sensitive information related to
its operation. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED to provide support for the
Transport Security Model (TSM) [RFC5591] in combination with TLS/DTLS
[RFC6353]."

I am fine with removing this also to match the boiler plate 100%.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/06/16 20:04, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> On 6/1/16, 2:21 PM, "iesg on behalf of Stephen Farrell"
>> <[e-mail] on behalf of
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Stephen:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> - The security considerations section doesn't seem to
>>> reflect the latest boilerplate. [2] Should it? I'm not
>>> making this a discuss as it's a minor change to a MIB and
>>> I accept that it's arguable that folks might not update
>>> their SNMP security code whilst doing this. But I don't
>>> think I've seen this case before (minor update to MIB
>>> without changed security boilerplate) so maybe the IESG
>>> should chat about it to decide if there's anything to be
>>> done here.
>>
>> The variations from the boilerplate are minimal:
>
> (But represent some arm-wrestling effort between SEC
> and OPS ads:-)
>
>>
>> Boilerplate>
>>    ...The support for SET operations in a non-secure
>>    environment without proper protection opens devices to attack.
>>
>> ...
>>    Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described by the
>>    SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), and implementations claiming
>> compliance
>>    to the SNMPv3 standard MUST include full support for authentication and
>>    privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] with the AES
>>    cipher algorithm [RFC3826].
>>
>>
>>
>> rfc6779bis>
>>    ...The support for SET operations in a non-secure
>>    environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on
>>    network operations.
>>
>> ...
>>    Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the
>>    SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), including full support for
>>    authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
>>    [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826].
>>
>>
>> I don't have any issues with making the text match.
>
> Great. Like I said I don't think this is discuss-worthy,
> but OTOH, if someone's updating their code then that is
> a good time to update the security stuff too.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security
>>
>