[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Sun, 11 April 2010 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916803A67D7; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXvP-VIP0er6; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F353A690A; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8FAAbCwEurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACPcwGLVHGecphChQwEgyU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,183,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="512733512"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2010 01:24:11 +0000
Received: from sjc-cde-011.cisco.com (sjc-cde-011.cisco.com []) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3B1OAwX028846; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:24:10 GMT
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:24:10 -0700
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1004101623250.26156@sjc-cde-011.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: cwallace@cygnacom.com
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01
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: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:26:12 -0000


I 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.

Overall, I do not see any particular security concerns.  The document 
appears to be in good shape and ready for publication.

Not finding anything of particular importance to note about the concepts, 
I started looking at the nits.

Section 1 - The following is an awkward sentence:
    The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652]
    defines means to...
    The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652]
    defines mechanisms to...
(Means means so many different things.)

Section 1 also says:
    This document also defines an unprotected attribute for use with one
    of the key management options supported by the encrypted key package
    content type.
Not being a crypto geek, I'm left guessing which this is.  It's not 
specifically called out in the document, and the implications of using it 
are not called out in the Security Considerations section.

Why are you asking the RFC Editor to remove the IANA Considerstions 
section?  Maybe I missed it, but I havn't seen any discussion about not 
having an IANA Considerations section if you don't have anything for the 
IANA to do.  I can see Informational and Experimental RFCs not having 
anything, but IMHO a Standards Track document should have an IANA 
Considerations ection even if it is just to say that nothing needs to be