[pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-13: (with COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 09 July 2015 11:18 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4841AD1C3; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 04:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 HarCq6_3A0Tt; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 04:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB6A1A702D; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 04:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150709111801.11716.51471.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 04:18:01 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/i7o45_MRFLMqj0OdFHNOj8KqWvI>
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:18:02 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-13: No Objection 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-pcp-authentication/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for getting this done. - Why didn't you choose to encrypt the PCP payloads after you've got a shared secret? If the answer here is "oops, we never thought about that," then this will likely turn into a DISCUSS, but I expect the WG did think about it, in which case I reckon my preference for confidentiality doesn't trump the WG consensus. - How would this work in a home network where the f/w is not managed by the ISP and there'd otherwise be no EAP infrastructure? That could be out-of-scope or require some new/odd EAP implementation and no change to this protocol, and that is probably fine, but I do wonder. - 3.3: Is this really needed? I wonder if we could do without it. The protocol would be simpler if this wasn't needed and simpler == more-secure in general. - 5.11: would s/issued the credentials/issued the EAP credentials that will be used to authenticate the client/ be better? As-is, it's a tiny bit confusing maybe. - 6.2: Maybe this is being overly paranoid, but would it be worth saying that in all failure cases when you say discard the message, you mean to not process it's content? With a very perverse reading of the current text, I might be able to argue that I could process the message content first and only then check the authentication afterwards. Yes, that'd be fairly spectacularly dim, but that kind of thing does sometimes happen. (If there's a better place in the draft to put some text on that, that's just fine.)
- [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Stephen Farrell