Re: [secdir] (Early) Secdir review of draft-ietf-netconf-keystore

[Magnus Nyström <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent,
I did review the updated Section 4 and I think it looks good. A couple of
minor suggestions:

   - You could replace "Master Encryption Key (MEK)" with just "Master Key
   (MK)," it is a more common term I think.
   - In addition, I would suggest replacing 'In order to decouple the
   crypto officers from the regular administrators, a second KEK, called the
   "master encryption key" (MEK), is used." with "In order to decouple the
   crypto officers from the regular administrators, a second KEK, called the
   "master encryption key" (MEK), MAY be used."
   (The "MAY" shows there are more options)

Thanks,
/M

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 7:35 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
> I just want to confirm, did you read the new Section 4 (Encrypting Keys in
> Configuration) in the plain-text draft I attached in my previous response?
> - it was effectively completely rewritten to align with the Key Encryption
> Key and Master Key terminology...
>
> PS: Sandy’s response is massive, but it refers to the old Section 4 text
> so, before digging into it, I want to ensure that you’re happy with the new
> text.
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:28 AM, Magnus Nyström <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kent,
> > On the metadata, yes, I did catch that the actual values are protected.
> My
> > suggestion (it is entirely up to the group of course) was just to
> consider
> > if any of the data that will be readable may warrant a similar
> restriction
> > as you have for the actual key values.
> >
> > On the root key etc., - OK, I understand now. I am also good with your
> > other updates.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > /M
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:26 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> [CC-ing netconf-chairs]
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Magnus,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the review.  Below are some comments, as well as a link to
> >> the GitHub commit, and an updated plain-text version of the draft.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kent
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2020, at 1:29 AM, Magnus Nyström <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> This document describes a new YANG model for centralized configuration
> of
> >> cryptographic keys in the context of NETCONF and RESTCONF.
> >>
> >>
> >> Section 4 describes a process to encrypt all "private" keys in a
> >> configuration. It is unclear if this refers only to the asymmetric keys
> in
> >> the configuration (as "private keys" normally refer to asymmetric keys)
> or
> >> also symmetric keys. It appears to apply to all cryptographic keys, and
> it
> >> therefore seems better to replace this usage of "private" with
> "symmetric
> >> and asymmetric private keys."
> >>
> >>
> >> Good catch.  r/all the private keys/both the symmetric and asymmetric
> keys/
> >>
> >>
> >> Likewise, the use of the term "root key" is a bit unclear. A "root key"
> >> normally refers to an asymmetric key, but in this text it could be
> either
>
>

-- 
-- Magnus