[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-scim-use-cases

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Mon, 06 April 2015 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@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 6764A1AD061 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 18:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 IVKJiJoNlCDN for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 18:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (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 D58CB1AD05F for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 18:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so18562282wid.0 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 18:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GdxvMqnc03ydda5EqWvD+E3lnGdoQcbhSHBOqXSmhUE=; b=SrYMd0zEyDDMU/NW6znSVOWalSd3PlyQ46zkAngQXtxP8H5TqdIBcr8Hj/1VBgAp26 dV2EQTmrDnfW2WFmIh3rIXdz174EXO0bQs7gQlGWLJbSpERsPkXlt5d1JTxcoa+ggTXb OkQ+ZiKuygxC5X0fe0Z3pgmw6xGJ7lbK6HY7jskSndJI5oEiQnhi0sVvK1FdMpzbhrbO o5mP9tA1osBcVaJUfBsdoRFTa0H+3YMOuh31syPJXoB88azpHXIciz60S7cNV3EMew88 zc+Vr/7/+6ksARud3tFO/hIA8wIcBbQ+xxSlFiuMpa2Gh6VBSdjIW+zvX0qQiEo8fFh9 M9ww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.103.136 with SMTP id fw8mr54184329wib.46.1428285064681; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 18:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.46.131 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 18:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 18:51:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajj4ZnkjwQtZPqASTHqNvzgkDn_tVJKYiJqjAKyVujZP73DA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-scim-use-cases@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04430446eb1e3505130487e3"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TQlUK98Bq4aeWW1jIlqt1_c1AJg>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-scim-use-cases
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: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 01:51:07 -0000

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 memo describes the "System for Cross-domain Identity Management
(SCIM)." SCIM is a companion document to the SCIM Schema memo and the SCIM
Protocol memo.

Section 3.5: Shouldn't there also be a requirement for the secure transfer
of attributes between A and B based on matters such as A trusting
authentication results from B, a means to provide those authentication
results securely to B, etc.? Essentially similar to what was presented in
Section 3.3?

Section 3.6: Similar comment as for Section 3.5. There seems to be general
security requirements missing for these two scenarios?

Section 4: I only glanced the Security Consideration sections referenced
here, but they do seem adequate, and given that I don't see that this
memo's Security Consideration section need to contain more information.
Editorial suggestion: "only authenticated entity" -> "only authenticated
entities".

-- Magnus