Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 03 August 2015 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC691A1ADA; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 F9rOxE9oKxMq; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (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 D24BB1A1A0B; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oizz185 with SMTP id z185so186284oiz.0; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IilphT+hzEn3uF1wgN2Me1ld+jw44VpPfApM73oP3bI=; b=F8HdCp3Der8uzB15wKftKSe/0SU1aj3Ouaw7PHhbQTKo6a6cccJy+ZXIwlwhn0/F7p HCCShzOXncTh68zG++uAEZCQm/TzRjU9F8mj3lQIGFoejm+t1NQE5LOCprHQKocpm1Y1 jtzr0CmeJPrfRQ/bcNuY7irnKjpiEmZNhy+159tfpbvWeD2d8j6aGxwNLlso8F00A5iT DMVDpUDD84Y26q7mmW63yz0qfRWz8oU/ff42pJNzQFSLDl0/mFmFki79j6aLzvPr+g00 tUQycHRwnbmAPWumhsP65V2uhngyUhwvoooti73aY438ssd7x3druOVYDZKHVDAkzDSA eHCQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.61.85 with SMTP id k82mr80705oia.73.1438636963272; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.173.3 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A6BA710C-6A71-42C8-BAFD-6E2C851F4432@cisco.com>
References: <CAF4+nEEAwUrM-osyKzMpqMYeHmx1OPJ=+ZB+dFAJ=tT=vCxiTw@mail.gmail.com> <A6BA710C-6A71-42C8-BAFD-6E2C851F4432@cisco.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:22:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGBj5q0CjYTq8+4EuOQKqt0S0dcNTbMhOAjMz3E0DnBzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alissa Cooper (alcoop)" <alcoop@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HsJjYH6UU_I8NB5LNwAl0u9TU2M>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy.all@tools.ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 03 Aug 2015 21:22:45 -0000

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for your quick reply.

I'm fine with all of your responses. I think the added explanation
your propose of Low Byte in Section 1 is good and eliminates the need
for any addition to Section 4.2 on that topic.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Alissa Cooper (alcoop) <alcoop@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
> Thank you for your review. Comments in-line.
>
> On Aug 1, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> 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.  Document
> editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
> call comments.
>
> This draft is ready with nits. It provides a survey of the privacy and
> security considerations of a variety of IPv6 address generation mechanisms.
> As far as I can tell, it does a thorough job and is a useful document. I
> have the following minor comments:
>
> Section 1: Although references and lengthier names are given for all the
> other categories of configuration method, the "Manual configuration" method
> section is notable for the brevity of its entries and lack of any references
> whatsoever. I don't have the faintest idea what "Wordy" is and a couple of
> the others convey to me only a vague idea of what is being listed.
>
>
> Understood. Here is my suggestion, drawing text from
> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning:
>
> OLD
> o  Manual configuration
>
>       *  IPv4 address
>
>       *  Service port
>
>       *  Wordy
>
>       *  Low-byte
>
> NEW
> o  Manual configuration
>
>       *  IPv4 address, in which the IID embeds the IPv4 address of the
> network interface (as in 2001:db8::192.0.2.1)
>
>       *  Service port, in which the IID embeds the TCP/UDP service port of
> the main service running on that node (as in 2001:db8::80 or 2001:db8::25)
>
>       *  Wordy, in which a word is encoded (as in 2001:db8::dead:beef)
>
>       *  Low-byte, in which most of the bytes of the IID are set to 0
> (except for the least significant byte)
>
>
>
> Section 2: What does "DHT" stand for? Given that it occurs exactly once in
> this document, perhaps it should be spelled out.
>
>
> Distributed hash table. Will make the change.
>
>
> Section 3.3: It might also be useful to mention that the group-addressed bit
> in the upper 24-bits of a 48 bit MAC will be zero and the global/local bit
> will probably be zero also. It would be good to add a reference to RFC 7042.
>
>
> Makes sense, will do.
>
>
> Section 4, Table 1: Given that there seems to be plenty of space, I would
> recommend spelling out "CGA" in the Mechanism column.
>
>
> Will do.
>
> Also, I see no reason for the "(s)" on the end of "Mechanism" in the column
> header.
>
>
> I think this was for a category like static manual, that could encompass
> multiple mechanisms in a single row of the table.
>
>
> Section 4.2: "low byte", which occurs here as well as in Section 1, could
> use a couple of sentences of explanation.
>
>
> If the explanation above is provided in Section 1, does that suffice?
>
>
> Section 4.3: The first sentence reads very oddly. Suggest replacing "it"
> with "such a mechanism”.
>
>
> Will do.
>
>
> Section 5.2: Maybe it is just me but it sounds quite odd to come across a
> "This document recommends" exactly once here almost at the end of this
> Informational document. It is certainly a reasonable recommendation but
> there are a number of previous points in the document where some mechanisms
> seems so much better, from the privacy and security point of view, than
> others that a recommendation would be equally justified. So I suggest
> changing "This document recommends that compliance testing suites be ..." to
> "Such compliance testing suites should be ...". (I realize that means about
> the same thing but somehow it bothers me a lot less.)
>
>
> That change works for me.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> Alternatively, state in the introduction that recommendations are provided
> and review the document and add appropriate recommendation language in favor
> of superior mechanisms.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com