Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 04 December 2009 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 7030A3A6936; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:35:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 Jc6UJ-hATwVG; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.newbay.com (87-198-172-198.ptr.magnet.ie [87.198.172.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6313A676A; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767E036006B; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:34:59 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at newbay.com
Received: from mail.newbay.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.newbay.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPXkyJR2qFsu; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:34:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail01.newbay.com (mail01.newbay.com [192.168.12.25]) by mail.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A16E360063; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:34:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail01.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925ED7C335; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:34:58 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at newbay.com
Received: from mail01.newbay.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail01.newbay.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WHVlsIJ3UVl4; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:34:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.168.3.23] (unknown [192.168.3.23]) by mail01.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8367C332; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:34:57 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <4B194840.6060904@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:34:56 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
References: <4B1470EB.2020906@cs.tcd.ie> <729b68be0912040931k808e9a4q9459966edf11932b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <729b68be0912040931k808e9a4q9459966edf11932b@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob@tools.ietf.org, sec-ads@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:35:10 -0000

Looks fine to me,
S.

Jean-Michel Combes wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> at first, thanks for your review.
> 
> 2009/12/1 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>ie>:
>> (Re-tx, messed up draft address 1st tiime, please cc secdir@ietf.org
>> on any response)
>>
>> 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 draft is a generally well-written description of some issues with
>> securing neighbour discovery when proxies are involved. As a problem
>> statement draft I find it just fine.
>>
>> I have two minor security comments and a few nits below.
>> Stephen.
>>
>> 1. The suggestion at the end of 4.2 that certificate serial number
>> or time field ordering be used to indicate relationships between
>> end entities seems very hacky. I'd suggest either deleting that
>> if its felt to be unlikely used, or else, if its actually
>> likely to be used, then documenting how it could actually work
> 
> OK. I am going to delete the text in the new version of the draft.
> 
>> 2. 7.2 mentions "signed, non-repudiable certificates" which is a
>> horribly odd phrase. Hopefully that's just sloppy language.
>> (s/signed, non-repudiable//), but if not, then its a concern (the
>> concern being that non-repudiation in protocols is mythical).
> 
> OK. I am going to delete "signed, non-repudiable" in the new version
> of the draft.
> 
>> Nits:
>>
>> 1. 2nd last para of 3.1: fix word ordering in last sentence, think it
>> ought say:
>>
>>  Such a message would be valid according to the SEND specification, if the
>>  Target Address and the source IPv6 address of the Neighbor Advertisement
>>  weren't different [RFC3971].
> 
> In fact, I am going to change the sentence as follows:
> "To be valid according to the SEND specification, the Target Address
> of the Neighbor Advertisement message would need to be replaced also
> to be equal to the Source Address [RFC3971]."
> The reason is that the Source Address and the Target Address are
> required to be equal (cf. RFC3971, section 7.4).
> Is it OK for you such a change?
> 
>> 2. 2.2.4 1st para: similar word ordering, maybe:
>>
>>  The router or CA may then be able to certify proxying for
>>  only a subset of the prefixes for which it is certified.
> 
> OK. Fixed in the new version of the draft.
> 
>> 3. 1st sentence of 7.2: s/The certificagte delegation/Certificate
>> delegation/
> 
> OK. Fixed in the new version of the draft.
> 
> Thanks again for your review.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> JMC.
>