[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 05:10 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A23126B7F for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 u8YoG6pPbWQg for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91E9F12702E for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 9so77403079pfj.1; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 22:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v7KbnW12xW2rd7+ULkOYdzsmCT3Gi4Zqvv8x37A1b7k=; b=nrCCZ47AzNht6jJy40wr2KB5bZDsI7ekLSML4SMKpPfCpGYdKo8Vg1LEEgcTgOWXWx nFAvX+CMWN5YgbP8sHKMlEP8WqpctSgPUgsbchNzCsYbLiPjm+PSVJk5quOu2pfiHYOB 66dezlzT36CnxurZ2yCumoeX0cbg1LMHmHkod66Cg058LgdO80AVGB+/PLTLPAJlCntB SEFO41RppU4iI77VW1OWLvy+3GRYOKOikwqSuNmyiz+IOxZ4k69J8Aj2VSZ3O2Tg2Y/L HgR240fZUXbj52zgeWIpog5Pvl9E+T7lSTR+twSLxve30x5HiCd6h89qQe4z8G/pU3U9 x1YQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v7KbnW12xW2rd7+ULkOYdzsmCT3Gi4Zqvv8x37A1b7k=; b=fW5rfR9XRLsQvYR8aO/gcxrpFGcrIVoSuDAYNAfIbRm1ajxF4eaUY95SJj3FhFlxiE FO+EEG8iVAw2yhIDJpJ7lC30qMSavK/1VtBrv9d8OfeGinP1ZOfotBLlDMzI3DVCGUD0 +ibCfpkj2Fdh3+5kjmSnLuzx3WpgpP54drj97q25mfnR2B7HUrLDXqi2yKdyrRSwlgq9 HQD1589Z0pZHJnR2Hd+orsSTxwwvrPJE2reV2a4I5KSEVot/OoZKiKT9cA4Jhted35Nq vTuHAoGkf3WzkMHsxlkwXo2Q19HR0Q8lV9tJoOxA1YJKkOfZSeQqihQj+bG4/72BrQWV 31/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCVBP3yrq1zbueEyOAvKbA+4GPYwlu2qluB1+8f6H6Hnktj/gUi JxT6JlvL3fkTzpjVXdcDF1Z2pVLOnAUU4hY=
X-Received: by 10.98.158.138 with SMTP id f10mr7549743pfk.177.1496639408794; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 22:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.207.228 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 22:10:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmv37zF0f_9trPeS8xCu0NeE6sryV=tuVH9fCbjVXXq7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host.all@tools.ietf.org, iseg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c04fd8a53503f05512f84ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/80ls8e6y6tYx44_R-4r7rri0kxM>
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 05:10:13 -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.

The summary of the review is that this document is has one substantial
issue plus a formatting nit: the author names are running into the title.
Perhaps this can be fixed

The substantial comment is that the interaction of privacy addresses with
giving each subscriber a unique IPv6 address prefix space is not discussed
in this document at all. This seems like a security issue that should be
addressed as it reduces privacy compared to a shared prefix for all users.
(Or maybe I am completely wrong: I do not know IPv6 in great detail). At
minimum it should be discussed in the security considerations section, even
if explicitly dismissed.

Sincerely,
Watson