Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-07

Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> Tue, 24 November 2009 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <pfaltstr@cisco.com>
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 5CB8B28C123; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:46:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 k1LivTSxqf0e; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:46:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F5F3A6B4B; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAJicC0tAZnwM/2dsb2JhbAC+FJgEhDkE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,280,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="203715307"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2009 16:45:58 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAOGjcZ0002166; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:45:58 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.231.93]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:45:49 +0100
Received: from [192.165.72.14] ([10.55.91.228]) by xfe-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:45:49 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C70B55D-9260-429A-9B2D-CE355C282BF4@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:45:48 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E02D13FE-3409-4F2D-BD00-4C066AC90DA9@cisco.com>
References: <4AD9BF2E.8010606@hyperthought.com> <4C70B55D-9260-429A-9B2D-CE355C282BF4@google.com>
To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2009 16:45:49.0574 (UTC) FILETIME=[93E1B260:01CA6D25]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:08:12 -0800
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, idnabis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-07
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:46:11 -0000

This is taken care of in the new (-08) version of the document.

  Patrik

On 17 okt 2009, at 18.01, Vint Cerf wrote:

> scott, good point - we will attend to this editorial suggestion.
> 
> v
> 
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Scott G. Kelly 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.
>> 
>> The document specifies rules for deciding whether a code point should be
>> included in an Internationalized Domain Name. It's a member of a
>> 4-document group, and as Paul pointed out in a related review, should be
>> considered as such.
>> 
>> The security considerations section consists of one sentence:
>> 
>> "The security issues associated with this work are discussed in
>> [IDNA2008-protocol]."
>> 
>> Following that link to the protocol document's security considerations
>> section:
>> 
>> "Security Considerations for this version of IDNA, except for the
>> special issues associated with right to left and characters, are
>> described in [IDNA2008-Defs].  Specific issues for labels containing
>> characters associated with scripts written right to left appear in
>> [IDNA2008-BIDI]."
>> 
>> The security considerations in those two documents (especially the
>> protocol document) do seem to cover the issues, although like Sam, I
>> don't feel qualified to definitively state this, and so I think the
>> security ADs should pay some attention to this collection of documents.
>> 
>> Editorially, one might consider removing the reference indirection and
>> pointing the reader directly at [IDNA2008-Defs] and [IDNA2008-BIDI].
>> 
>> --Scott
>