Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-02

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear Phillip,

Thank you for the review.

The option as defined in the document does not influence the decision-making process of the PCP Server. Furthermore, a PCP client is not allowed to retrieve a description associated with a state maintained by the server; all what it can do is to erase it, add one or update an existing one.

Given this clarification, do you still think there is an issue that should be addressed? Thanks.

Cheers,
Med


De : Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
Envoyé : vendredi 15 novembre 2013 01:57
À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-02

  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 document adds a 'description' option to the PCP protocol. The description does not have defined semantics in PCP. As such the Security Considerations relies on the considerations in the PCP specification.

This seems ill advised to me. Even though the field has no semantics in PCP it is essentially the equivalent of a TXT RR in the DNS, possibly the most over-used and abused RR in the DNS protocol.

If the description option is added then people are going to start using it to define site local semantics unless there is some other mechanism for that purpose. I suggest that the draft authors either add a description of how to use the PCP mechanisms for this purpose (if applicable) or describe a mechanism to support this use and preferably providing some sort of protection against collisions.

Such a mechanism needs to consider the authenticity of the data provided and the risk that it might disclose data to another application.


--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/