[secdir] draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-03 SECDIR review

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 28 January 2016 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011071AC3A7; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 zCaRLandTJvP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (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 9C9941AC3A6; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x231.google.com with SMTP id is5so48010908obc.0; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Xn6p2TgJsuBNttEW4ldqIPUbVQQ/gIA5ewzdmPkrDuU=; b=nmFZi0TtBw723SK/qAwcV2UbDSuXpK2qo1MRuiAE3sWkHkCmClspG+n1iH5NIdi4NU CGZsxTix3WvBeMRKgdHLJTuHGQneyb67GUQ0T6sBg+NxCXqAtmVle1p5mFv6myU/Fw9f ush2KOl+YBh/muOyYtwzz1mwDOgI55416PPOgw27C76jjX/TvUv+49SFJVXFljtdizBd sK2IC+BvEyXQGmshrPboLOjADEYv5maFLUhV7H3maTpdpC258m4rWokBMANgiCbGKkVp dJQlFGI6TuLFZm9zZmk/Ld6es4suJXx6c9d9BUFn+vuy7lE8/baMeYp/LVwDrf603Rdz 5DEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Xn6p2TgJsuBNttEW4ldqIPUbVQQ/gIA5ewzdmPkrDuU=; b=A4+IK8tKJliGBl3kCMKN79GGkpuPZVAl9bf6veEd6QRid79ZjZol+0BVSsayClNTBc m6108RD5J7gI86qLLxH7pyUP286rfGSMJMaRQBRBiDQN6avhRL5jqzw6cz0KiY6yJmIl Zcq9YwRD3LgPR8plXSh+dXPoUnf3/uIr4/5McHyaXFYrRJIlvLUacKoUyEKe7N7Sekaa DwCCH4dZPAzMfLd6Ge93jJiCHvq4KC/WqVSM0fR5N7ppNy9Khr6yCcBi8MOmQTo25bfm +kAReOKSC0w3D9gWnOmnxu8S2skcRPrmuK/wr3V2YtnaaN+TlPFG/6qbst6EwslOwBgX kx0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORVK8rT9Q+vULqo/psGzktUtTgdnmq0mSDqNS3hUCQS6GX2eg2TWs9oSSPGtdoYphJ0GG9jHQC8nuDSBA==
X-Received: by 10.182.79.103 with SMTP id i7mr4109265obx.41.1454019438033; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.157.161 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:17:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:17:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGUrtCW4bwAOq3Z17o4mVecF8qt6Z0HQmuP5O0yA67J0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/bRVyV7PvLWcpLVcjP4rbc8hqesM>
Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-03 SECDIR review
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:17:20 -0000

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.

I think this document is pretty much Ready with nits. It is a
replacement for RFC 7630 with the only change being, apparently, that
the MIB MODULE-IDENTITY was incorrect in 7630.

The Security Considerations Section looks good.

Nits:

The Abstract does not mention that this document obsoletes RFC 7630. I
think it is a good practice to include that in the Abstract.

The first paragraph of the Introduction seems odd to me It says
   "This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines
   additional authentication protocols ..."
While I can't actually say this is actually wrong, the portion of the
MIB it defines is trivial and it seems to me that the meat is in the
specification of the additional authentication protocols. Certainly,
those authentication protocol specifications don't appear in the MIB
portion specified, only identifiers for them. Yet the wording of the
Introduction (... defines a portion of the ... MIB.. In particular,
...) seems to imply that the definition of the additional
authentication protocols is a subpart of the portion of the MIB. So I
would say the Introduction should begin with something like:
   "This document specified additional authentication protocols ... In
addition, it defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) containing identifiers for these authentication protocols for
use with network management protocols."

Section 4.2, line 3: suggest replacing "defined" with "specified" so
that "definition" and "defined" don't occur so close to each other. I
think it reads a bit better with that change.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com