Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13

CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Fri, 01 November 2019 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 DFCE21208BD for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:06:55 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it.uc3m.es
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 MAsPwzYbokPa for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (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 E5460120899 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id w3so5049730edt.2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it.uc3m.es; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rkqrna1NRQzfybbehKYGNKR/ie9lLXXCu31++a01xuc=; b=nPeLau0GgxYK/XllG3csHguXH7Pd1O2MygDySl4P0r9vYJ3ANXtU8+hyydSb8la97z WM6dTdz5LmQxF5QYTbQi4RMTm1LkQhBtK+fvgB7D6BXsWq85dTtDWIPckC0fxpGGWxhs rIBLelhQiWXQllMczeMX3mPpJZtRwlbouPSidMKBOZyowwGazmHeM/RHfHjVBKORLO/g EhqG38iNb6ogurpolUzwpIxPjgR642rsZtYqeFTfYV0A6dUCZL2ma/d8t/Q15IoN5yV+ b7zj2Y1qZN16bOZHrhcEf2arSA9ypvNdZflrrAbKB1zqNd/AM3mS7icHXqdEEk7ToqjY WutA==
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=rkqrna1NRQzfybbehKYGNKR/ie9lLXXCu31++a01xuc=; b=s72gf38ji283T9Vl4Dg44Rmg3CVGsscH07FZ2TUSlLPtgy/w+P7PUchNOFBVMacA1s NoYsayL3f/dQXabnAPGjJpR9HklFAVylGIr1NeweURlmJwKeCNnmmDawUlAlLPvBXkC0 zClcUwGuNi2nQbtJZpcPKFA9+N8xSWQhCf36UroHFt1vI5uVQM1shr5vwvd0chRORzWB M5jcuI6NdHeVWMJEWTL+wAq8FEIk7DgF8spGqNT3KshdkPdMwpI3Gyk/K1HPM8u1GO8k gsjv5oX+bbP38PKd/1S07SFXMMwHZ7S3/VoplCb6W/kA0LErof8OeTyIu/yFXqmEKNf5 Y5ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVtRJxyg9v2qwuSNG3JtfADpcGOnSUiYkf5WWMTYP1i8qIvMSRz 0R9rVtL/PpER0LLlHQpbsvwZJGPDFOBt06J0Au7xyDT0WkyWrQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/+GqscUBUqrdkILmvsg6AmJHIEGXiHIVQgbTlJsPMm4TQ9wEWx8B1lufM2QcKE9tZApJYO4LAcV2liLSB204=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:fd03:: with SMTP id i3mr12315823eds.70.1572610011254; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157100555733.20750.5488529297693995498@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALypLp9+j9pAMdhOJKfFoQrC_4joi7_Mcx0AP04aWb3Wob=NwQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALypLp9+j9pAMdhOJKfFoQrC_4joi7_Mcx0AP04aWb3Wob=NwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:06:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CALypLp-zhYdr1cpQJho_v1wO=K8UM40LGe0k5QqNg6BSsXuGdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000176dcc059647cd56"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/apHSL48wIk-Gbda9dT6gsJvNnag>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 12:07:00 -0000

Dear Joseph,

We've just posted a new revision (-14) addressing all your comments.

Thanks!

Carlos

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:12 PM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>;
wrote:

> Dear Joseph,
>
> Thanks a lot for the review. We will improve the security consideration
> section by including also some of the considerations mentioned in draft-
> ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04, and also by better scoping current text.
> We believe we don't need much more in terms of text, as the document is
> informational, and the actual security mechanisms for a distributed
> anchoring solution would depend on the specifics of that solution. We can
> also better reflect that rational in the text.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carlos
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:25 AM Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Joseph Salowey
>> Review result: Has Issues
>>
>> 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 summary of the review is the document has issues with the security
>> considerations section.
>>
>> The security consideration section is extremely light.  It mainly
>> contains text
>> from RFC 7333.  It seems that there should be more discussion of security
>> as it
>> relates to the different configurations and different cases.   Do each of
>> these
>> cases have the same security properties and require the same types of
>> security
>> controls?
>>
>> Are the IPSEC recommendations mentioned in the security considerations of
>> draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04 applicable for all the cases?   Should
>> these be pointed out in the security considerations section?
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution":
> https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
>
>

-- 
Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution":
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g