Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-03

joel jaeggli <> Tue, 13 January 2015 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692EB1AD49D; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FtoHmI1kOFPc; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E07EC1AD481; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-aye.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0DLVHcb014358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:31:17 GMT (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:31:10 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/34.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= <>, The IESG <>, IETF Security Directorate <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5GHcGFxdRVqFnaF7RuP0udSm8HgNTe2bR"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:31:24 -0000

Thanks Matt!


On 1/13/15 12:49 PM, ⌘ Matt Miller 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 Informational document describes use cases for managing a network
> involving constrained devices (e.g., sensors, smart controllers), along
> with a discussion on network access and the operational lifecycle of
> such devices.  This also covers some situational guidelines and
> requirements specific to the discussed use cases.
> This document is ready with nits.  My one issue I have might not be
> appropriate for this use case document, and my other nits are simply
> editorial.
> There is little mention about data protection within this document, but
> is discussed some in [COM-REQ].  However, neither this document nor
> [COM-REQ] include any discussion about protecting data as it traverses
> networks (e.g., using TLS or DTLS), as far as I can tell.  I assume this
> will be covered in greater detail in any Standards Track documents
> derived from these documents, but might be worthwhile to at least
> mention in the use cases where in-transit data protection needs special
> considerations, if not more generally in [COM-REQ].
> NITS (not security related):
> * RFC7228 is listed as informational, but it probably ought to be
> normative.  It seems to me that it's necessary to understand the terms
> from RFC7228 in order to understand this document.
> * [COM-REQ] is listed as an informational reference, but ought to be
> normative.  It seems to me that it's necessary to understand [COM-REQ]
> in order to understand this document, at least from a security perspective.
> * Throughout the document, the locution "ad-hoc" should be "ad hoc".
> * Throughout the document, the phrase "In cases" is almost always (two
> out of three) followed by a comma, which seems superfluous.
> * In section 1. second paragraph, "type" should be "types" in the phrase
> "... the management of a network with constrained devices offers
> different type of challenges compared to ...".
> * In section 2. last paragraph, "since tend" should be "since they tend"
> in the phrase "... are not discussed here since tend to be quite static
> and do not typically impose ..."
> * In section 4.1. second paragraph, "looses" should be "loses" in the
> phrase "... new constrained devices in case the system looses too much
> of its structure."
> * In section 4.1. second paragraph, "loosing" should be "losing" in the
> phrase "... deal with events such as loosing neighbors or being moved to
> other locations."