[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01 (fwd)

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Sun, 11 April 2010 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEB93A683F; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxZTzyAfy2WK; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EB63A67D7; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8FAGPEwEurR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACPcwGLVHGefpg/hQwEgyU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,183,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="512736014"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2010 01:34:45 +0000
Received: from sjc-cde-011.cisco.com (sjc-cde-011.cisco.com []) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3B1YjVR013949; Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:34:45 GMT
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:34:45 -0700
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, cwallace@cygnacom.com, turners@ieca.com, housley@vigilsec.com, cwallace@cygnacom.com
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1004101827580.26156@sjc-cde-011.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01 (fwd)
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: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:34:53 -0000

So, this didn't make it to 
draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01.all@tools.ietf.org so I'm 
sending it again to all of the proper recipients.  Please respond to this 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org,
Cc: cwallace@cygnacom.com
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of


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.

Overall, I do not see any particular security concerns.  The document appears 
to be in good shape and ready for publication.

Not finding anything of particular importance to note about the concepts, I 
started looking at the nits.

Section 1 - The following is an awkward sentence:
     The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652]
     defines means to...
     The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652]
     defines mechanisms to...
(Means means so many different things.)

Section 1 also says:
     This document also defines an unprotected attribute for use with one
     of the key management options supported by the encrypted key package
     content type.
Not being a crypto geek, I'm left guessing which this is.  It's not 
specifically called out in the document, and the implications of using it are 
not called out in the Security Considerations section.

Why are you asking the RFC Editor to remove the IANA Considerstions section? 
Maybe I missed it, but I havn't seen any discussion about not having an IANA 
Considerations section if you don't have anything for the IANA to do.  I can 
see Informational and Experimental RFCs not having anything, but IMHO a 
Standards Track document should have an IANA Considerations ection even if it 
is just to say that nothing needs to be done.

secdir mailing list