Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16

Barry Leiba <> Sat, 29 June 2019 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D0F1200A3; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q298DK3o93ct; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC6001200C5; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e5so19330291iok.4; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jkvypC//U8i3ReQPy7QsLEega9HuWyfq/yutLuNvhoE=; b=od4Eb+LCg/tj9XiZfcr0OnTOPWZWQCkO88AmPnbN/S3M2bqga4JAAxtYNZOqfEPXND 5yNLN1RDgsMuDXa5FPoC2uDEwtsyR6m2RK5A4ijtSe+BLbGFi1FYH4K78g1Hdx8QicTH I1zBA2H2+gB6fedzXVDPIPLRbzeaUrMjdMw4RjuMkPaUssqrJsTBoSQrbwRypG+xbZZW C5w37hEAIayRKiZ6sPU6SJUXAXpZdpjsGRxiB+ruRgFN05PfvqhrSXgvK9h/KkKb6VAo 6CClfJUgs14RBTw5VeLmY8mCXVrKIQlyHtx6u+jMLc2jj3ajJO1KCi27M/DUBDhvLH6r OW7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVaTcv/kLy6jjZL0WDRG4O6YslRNtOaC+sQTvXbuF2lTTfODSJh mq8l/DUe0RqvxMa668289YSJSm9bdWMyTxRiqYM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwISwZPIenA28C6DErWp/a/+THjlJreo1V0EvZWMkPRX/jCq5xL5OU+13BBxiCyNBPNO2ncH3nD4wu7WeVIK0k=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9613:: with SMTP id w19mr9905646iol.140.1561827759852; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:02:29 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Yoav Nir <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d390cb058c795cc9"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:02:43 -0000

Thanks, Yoav.  I had warned the working group of that very issue, and I’m
sure they plan to address it as part of the last call comments.  Thanks for
raising the issue here as well.


On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 11:26 AM Yoav Nir via Datatracker <>

> Reviewer: Yoav Nir
> Review result: Has Nits
> 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.
> The entire text of the Security Considerations section is as follows:
>    The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
>    security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730], the EPP
>    domain name mapping [RFC5731], and protocol layers used by EPP.  The
>    security considerations described in these other specifications apply
>    to this specification as well.
> This is what we like to call "security considerations by reference". I
> don't
> know what "security services" are in this context, but they are not the
> only
> thing that needs to be described in a Security Considerations section.
> In this case, the draft adds information about fees, customer credit and
> pay
> schedule. This falls under the category of financial information, which
> should
> be protected in transit by security mechanisms that protect
> confidentiality and
> integrity. It is also true that any transport mechanism that complies with
> 5730 provides those functions. So what I'm missing here is a sentence that
> calls this out specifically. Something along the lines of "This extension
> adds
> financial information to the EPP protocol, so confidentiality and integrity
> protection must be provided by the transport mechanism.  All transports
> compliant with RFC5730 provide that"