Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-09
Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Tue, 08 September 2009 16:31 UTC
Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2EB3A68B4; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z1uz29b4hzbE; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com (mail-ew0-f207.google.com [209.85.219.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2015A3A6896; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so3690196ewy.42 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9+hy8lMWiy9T8SA9B9qWAg3EnQMOrGzu6Md947SFqFY=; b=xvMiLxy9RALlSP1udfBflm/4Ny/zP6BVe/r7bTz2O1aul22e5KbHb61TxUvGxWefJD cCtGG6utR6DKsqkaXVDaNoaEHZZuN/bZ1T/a513maTmDWYBh05TlgQYJBP56GiavH2yI mBaeeQWyBZwXlp1r1ihmTYpMEwPnGhmaomlAc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oOits1PRv9FdohTUiQ2DHVPWmi8u59+hLJ8xNlOhVesTdLLb5LZeOFmWOueRMNmtzX OmF8r+eLb1OTGcqd2wG1UIsM8YPVPkYnAGRgr2XhlUzOJ84JzMlf4+sI6Tq+K/MADObi o0cB1qS7k1CmfuNNo4C8TViChMAjgCSunsB9E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.211.184.18 with SMTP id l18mr17795444ebp.30.1252427518381; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE508AF8EC8@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE508AF8EC8@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:31:58 +0800
Message-ID: <1d38a3350909080931gfe1f17ao4921f6c11d33e9e4@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:57:44 -0700
Cc: mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:31:38 -0000
Dear Joseph Salowey Thanks for ur kind help, the draft has been updated to version 11 based on ur major comments reply inline. 2009/9/8 Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) <jsalowey@cisco.com>: > > have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security > area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these > comments just like any other last call comments. > > I have primarily focused on the security considerations section in this > document. I also quickly reviewed the rest of the document. Based on > my review I have the following comments: > > 1. In section 4.1, Identification > > It states "nonces" are optional. Nonces are not mentioned in the rest > of the document. This option should be removed. based on mip4's discussion, nonces section has been updated > > 2. Section 4.1, extensions > > I found this section confusing as to when the AE is required. It seems > the document states that the AE is always required, however it also uses > optional. For example its not clear to me what is required in the case > given is section 3.2. clarify by indicate which AE is mandate and which AE will be optional > > 3. Section 4.2, extensions > > Shouldn't the AE be required for GNAM? updated > > 4. Security considerations Section 8 > > It also wasn't quite clear to me when the AE is optional and mandatory. Updated in Message sections. > > > 5. Section 8.1 > > There are several places in the document where different replay > mechanisms are alluded to, included this section. This section states > that nodes must agree on the mechanism used. However there appears to > be no way to signal what mechanism is in use. Is this assumed to be > pre-configured in each node, or is there another mechanism for this? Is > this realistic for deployments? signal will be mobility security assocation as defined by the mobility security association between them, and SPI value in the authorization-enabling extension > > 6. Section 8.1.1 > > NTP RFC 1305 needs to be included in the normative references. yes > > Why is it important "those bits which are not available from a time > source SHOULD be generated from a good source of randomness" ? (it seems > that you don't really want bits to be random since you want to enforce > ordering) remove this > > This section also talks very briefly about clock synchronization. It > seems there could be security implications here. One node may be able > to poison a clock to an in appropriate value. There probably should be > more discussion here. if poison, will discard it > > 7. Section 8.2 > > This section makes a statement but does not describe how impacts the > security of the system. Since authentication is not performed can you > use the extension defined in the document in this case? What is the > effect of the lack of authentication. added. thanks again. Best regards, -Hui >
- [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mip4-generic… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mip4-gen… Jari Arkko
- Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mip4-gen… Hui Deng