Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-03

Roque Gagliano <roque.lacnic@gmail.com> Sat, 08 May 2010 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <roque.lacnic@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 CB56B3A69F0; Sat, 8 May 2010 09:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 kWn-1j6pwxIy; Sat, 8 May 2010 09:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2123A6987; Sat, 8 May 2010 09:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb39 with SMTP id 39so124832wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 08 May 2010 09:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kXA8MkpxujNVFdDDPsnwW7dZiMG/qVytPlWGH//JBhU=; b=nDN6geqPK3+7xktcC6Q7Bi/hRV6pqLPlH2CZ6SJWD4LrOFfjgOaLu3Eyl9nrbWgIxT /xXQZX8ut0xD9z33BTZoH6NAY/TFEEraFk9w1UcXQ/O4CyWWCoZmyZmVLD43srHCV56t 2c0MjqmHRNp1tpcohm2aYuAxT3xSMjqQujUGY=
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; b=pQwRnAYKNzYxxJ767n0mFYz3XxsQ1+CizA+jCsv8pQTl03sc3TzjBJ4HEelnusQtcw GdAlJIakqGne8blv1DD86rb7bwXxCSztFQaEI3N3RVJWjFDlNcb2cOZiyMURevFfEvSA AK521J17AOLo85DxqwRMbswvnoK++/vFlS2ho=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.163.67 with SMTP id z45mr1019725wek.26.1273336704793; Sat, 08 May 2010 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.185.143 with HTTP; Sat, 8 May 2010 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <020001caeebe$ffdcd560$ff968020$@com>
References: <020001caeebe$ffdcd560$ff968020$@com>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 18:38:24 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikBkBWm8hY9Jyj7PxciFc8FRrnbII_OajwD7Gt2@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roque Gagliano <roque.lacnic@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Cain <pcain@coopercain.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636426523f7fe97048617cd43
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 08 May 2010 09:51:32 -0700
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry.all@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-03
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: Sat, 08 May 2010 16:49:40 -0000

Patrick,

Thank you for your review.

You are correct oonly 160 bits SHA-1 hash is defined in RFC 5280 and
required in draft-ietf-sidr-res-cert

Regards,

Roque

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Patrick Cain <pcain@coopercain.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> About this document:
>
> SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) defines the Name Type field in the
>   Trust Anchor option.  This document request to IANA the creation and
>   management of a registry for this field.  This document also
>   specifies a new Name Type field based on a certificate Subject Key
>   Identifier (SKI).
>
> My comments:
>
> The document has no major technical shortcomings that I could find.
>
> I do note that the new registry value defined in this document relies on
> SHA-1 (160).
> This may be a good time to save a few RFC numbers and define a value for
> the
> impending other SHA values, like SHA-2, although I'm not so sure they exist
> in x.509
> certificates yet.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>