Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 SecDir review
Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 07 March 2012 15:56 UTC
Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 EAA6F21E808A; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:56:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.763, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NB1cH5VEUARB; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B72221E80A7; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so9062837lag.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:56:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JdNoi4bw2BfEza5QUuXclREBDb1IPgWA8oK9VykE2lY=; b=V9bKwgsbeQUq2r2GGt0QeFcxHWxM9KQrq74iF1ajQk25Li17NqNF4dxu3JVMGi/A9l 3Z7jzfcJoy3UNlwjVW5zGcpnnk75hqGOFe78RR9xAEdoodFmDTvvNFBdlVupgGSLSbJ6 WXj2NYqQIYHUs6i7Rqafbl2fiSsAjL2MVXECvJJNaOJ/5m2R/a2gTii1oQVDxY3opeaR kVj95gqY6I7WGwqL67oD3kdfFR+ZnrdXn72UBo4CYsTaBbdbpRAIH0VUqkOKGxmjdeM1 mno2EMkUztHOosZcg6jhFXm5QKKEk+I2t/NlzZMwKk2Q0bHZogwlNEZoRPxVarmheUsj hLsA==
Received: by 10.152.147.1 with SMTP id tg1mr1762534lab.22.1331135474333; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:51:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.29.76 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:50:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC9+bAxQCgJwtkWCVEETXq=AzqF+qZR_qo+OXnPwT5CF3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEGNcaTK2D-OX=7NW-UVz1PiuS-68ZJSDm5zMt5Wdei69A@mail.gmail.com> <CAK=bVC9+bAxQCgJwtkWCVEETXq=AzqF+qZR_qo+OXnPwT5CF3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:50:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFpnnQyqkY8-B33t-__f0WrW1pK5QML1VMZCZMy3uH-ig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 SecDir review
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:56:46 -0000
Thanks, at quick scan, the changes look good. Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote: > Dear Donald, > > thank you very much for your review of the draft. We have addressed your > comment about section 8.1 and 9.1 in a new revision which we just submitted. > > Best regards > Ulrich > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> My apologies for getting this review in late. >> >> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's >> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the >> IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> Overall, I do not have security concerns with this document. See >> comments below. >> >> This document describes "signature" and "time" building blocks for >> constructing messages/packets as described in RFC 5444. There is >> actually noticeable overlap with Section 7.1 of RFC 5444, enough that >> I am inclined to say that this draft should indicate the it Updates >> 5444. >> >> The Security Considerations Section says "... has the same security >> considerations as [RFC5444]." In turn, RFC 5444 says "This >> specification does not describe a protocol; it describes a packet >> format. As such, it does not specify any security considerations; >> these are matters for a protocol using this specification." :-) But, >> in fact, the Security Considerations Section of 5444 continues with >> design suggestions for authentication/integrity and confidentiality. >> Arguably, this draft provides a more detailed syntax with some >> processing rules for authentication/integrity with signatures >> extending 5444. But it still defers much to any specific MANET >> protocol making use of RFC 5444, this draft, and probably additional >> "building block" drafts or RFCs. >> >> It appears that the MANET WG is approaching all this through a series of >> overlapping documents each of which is of limited content but provides >> more details. For example, this draft sets up hash function and >> cryptographic function IANA registries but provides only the identity >> function as initial content for these registries. Presumably additional >> documents will request allocations from these registries for other >> functions. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach and >> trying to produce large monolithic documents can have problems. But a >> swarm of smaller inter-related and partly overlapping documents can be >> confusing. >> >> Section 8.1 and 9.1: These sections provide that when adding a packet >> or message signature TLV, respectively, any pre-existing packet or >> messages signature "MUST" be removed, etc., before signature calculation >> but >> only "SHOULD" be restored afterwards. I would have guessed that >> "SHOULD" would be a "MUST". In any case, it might be good to say when >> you don't need to restore a signature TLV, which I would assume would >> be if that signature TLV is not needed by the recipient. >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> ============================= >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA >> d3e3e3@gmail.com > >
- [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 SecDir … Donald Eastlake
- Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 Sec… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 Sec… Donald Eastlake