Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 03 February 2015 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 2EEB51A1ADD; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8djU-onTGbUf; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D88DF1A07BE; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t130tQGX025170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54D01C7D.3070009@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:55:25 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
References: <950ad656ed2a0e36e24fd7dc0e2b60b1.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <54CFC20E.9000701@isi.edu> <e6edc7afad0f732379c27b412b08220c.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <e6edc7afad0f732379c27b412b08220c.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/PGugXRCU6qN3c15OY1FSPVkS44M>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use
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: <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: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:55:58 -0000


On 2/2/2015 4:17 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
>   Hi Joe,
> 
> On Mon, February 2, 2015 10:29 am, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Hi, Dan,
>>
>> It should be easy to add DTLS where TLS is cited. IPsec is an
>> interesting issue; I can add a few sentences to the security
>> considerations area about that - e.g., that IPsec protects in a
>> different way than TLS/DTLS, and that one key aspect of its
>> configuration is port-specific parameters, which means it may be
>> difficult to use separate IPsec policies on different services unless
>> their port numbers are known and fixed in advance (even if using dynamic
>> port numbers).
> 
>   There's also the issue that even if it uses fixed ports the app has
> no assurance that IPsec will even be protecting it. From the app's
> perspective it's basically write-and-pray.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I'll add that too.

> 
>> That latter is probably 2-3 short sentences, and I think would be
>> worthwhile.
> 
>   That would be great and would address my comment.

AOK - thanks again!

Joe

> 
>   regards,
> 
>   Dan.
> 
>> Joe
>>
>> On 1/30/2015 4:04 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>>
>>>    Hello,
>>>
>>>    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 draft provides some advice and recommendations on protocol
>>> port use to application and service designers. It has a nice, brief
>>> history of port usage and a nice list of guiding principles to help
>>> conserve port space. It will make a nice BCP. In my opinion it is Ready
>>> For Publication. With that said, I do have a small comment. In section
>>> 7.4 the draft says that TLS should be used to protect services that do
>>> not provide their own security directly. It might be worth while adding
>>> mention of DTLS and IPsec. And if the latter is not something that
>>> should be recommended then justification for that stance should be
>>> given.
>>>
>>>    regards,
>>>
>>>    Dan.
>>>
>>
>