Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-18

Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com> Sat, 24 August 2019 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43AED120088; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 z0O22P_qXfyD; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 14:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 D79A212006D; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 14:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id p3so7950613pgb.9; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 14:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A3FB0rgL5uNCXbL9iJtguwuP4RJOxdtpuP05UwSIrPg=; b=GafuO7dSlA4mcMGwcoQ+dA1sdASfKX9zA6t/BW+5NdE//dEV19K/yURDg7xxoM5Lv3 d7KemYHrELwejbnNaSkO9t3LAiCwzDAwAp4jjD9CK+bB5x84UxqPpLM6OJ5/kaTuDpGE 92FrNb216FjF7Ho6SaLnJSeRO5erzFB0Qkpm0DPoC28OnuyzcxPk9pacBqtEX0PVb98w qt/aUMvcEHEJUDPHvGVDzUuO0u8lCxMzwPxWDKYjHldcUlQUkk7YLe4RGdQAO3Rbb+XN ha32xEHSRnw+CUnp0VG5/9+V8EyLcCchCtH60de/1tbwdp5wSa56fHbfdLhB+mpQDPYU Kqtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=A3FB0rgL5uNCXbL9iJtguwuP4RJOxdtpuP05UwSIrPg=; b=mZxLQ5ezXD6BfDo5ikbFtP6Vsbj8KU36+wu9+D6jE7NBCQkzSEWWqnbWMWcbh/Eyy0 mIKPB9XTXsRcgPpR25cSYStxfr2Xb1lN5BsEiTRVdPZcFGo2i5qLPL1QdYsnIhOrwrmX 5gwIr5XBSZowJ51H4HxFlN/sqAjtIzgC6yGfMpFszkHB9jy9IlNPaEM69h/1B/Ju6utD 1eeLCBDnaKkPh2q/6e9/Ogghe2KDmsEHQfsnGbN6JOnCHanRPV8f853dM+RTIFXdZ53B /FtavnwZlUTxH2jxcMMGtGSgdfl3lUmZyJO5FOH6LC+k2VAJ6UKBjQyCv3zpi26rGx6w R7ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXd9ePHMo75Q0bXJ0uXtS4qFM27d4+9Xt3IR9TqnWoosK1Y+Dnr dMgBBNnXFM+iwsgk6OEO81FEXvBeQJbIp13+Bbo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6+3yEn4HjGxS8Mck0njhon2EfGSDEoh8gfgnjksIsMlbMkeQHrAuzpiYcrNTtpw23ejNFuSTS23OY6Cfn4WM=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:61cd:: with SMTP id v196mr9747340pgb.263.1566681494027; Sat, 24 Aug 2019 14:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MWHPR04MB0367DA96CF172D996CDDA622DFA70@MWHPR04MB0367.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR04MB0367DA96CF172D996CDDA622DFA70@MWHPR04MB0367.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 17:18:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP8yD=t1QCb2KbxN2g55XWAbm4rMAKTeF+veBf90_e1dn4n4-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charlie Kaufman <charliekaufman@outlook.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea.all@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed831f0590e375f4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/YlzI6_ID05TwSUqDx0G1euqkYg0>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-18
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 21:18:17 -0000

Thank you, Charlie. Authors, these are good suggestions!

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 15:53 Charlie Kaufman <charliekaufman@outlook.com>;
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 document defines a new MIME type:
> 'application/EmergencyCallData.cap+xml' for use primarily by sensors to
> send alert messages to emergency services providers. It also defines a new
> Emergency Call Data Type: 'cap' in order to embed this data efficiently in
> a SIP transaction. I saw no new security issues beyond those already noted
> for the protocols carrying these messages.
>
> I do have some editorial suggestions:
>
> There is a lot of context that the authors assumed any reader would have
> that could have been stated in the introduction. I believe from context
> that the purpose of this new MIME type is to support simple (IoT) sensors
> that don't want to implement a more heavyweight protocol, but I don't
> believe that was stated anywhere.
>
> I got the impression that the functionality provided could have been done
> with existing protocols by sending the CAP message over a SIP session, but
> that doing so would place an unnecessary burden on simple (IoT) sensors,
> and that this protocol would be easier for such sensors to implement for
> the limited cases such sensors need to deal with. If that's true, it should
> be stated. If not, the purpose of this protocol should be more clearly
> stated.
>
> These acronyms were used but never defined:
>
> SIP
> CID
> LoST
>
> These acronyms were expanded, but not in an easy to find place:
>
> Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)
> Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)
> Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP)
>
> It would be nice to include them in the terminology section, ideally with
> a reference to the RFC where more information is available.
>
> Typo:
>
> p17 "security mechanism" -> "security mechanisms"
>
>  --Charlie
>
>