[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Tue, 21 October 2008 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secdir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C81D3A6ACE; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DBA3A6ACE for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifnI4cMhgbAI for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (PCH.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1DA3A6A95 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (pch.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m9LHqN1o005538 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:52:23 -0400
Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.83]) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m9LHqJOU005513 for <secdir@PCH.mit.edu>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:52:19 -0400
Received: from mit.edu (M24-004-BARRACUDA-2.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.112]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id m9LHqC2u018923 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:52:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (CHOKECHERRY.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.185.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mit.edu (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9308D135CF56 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [72.60.67.226] ([72.60.67.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m9LHpWu1014552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:51:31 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@mit.edu, sip-chairs@tools.ietf.org, jmpolk@cisco.com
Message-ID: <FF0BCACE7EA36655C8CD0D29@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.185.41
X-BeenThere: secdir@mit.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: secdir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@ietf.org

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 and registers a number of new SIP resource-priority
namespaces.  It does not define any particular semantics or operational
procedures for the new namespaces, beyond what is required by RFC4412,
and so introduces no new security considerations.

I'm a little confused about the need for this document.  As I understand
it, RFC4412 envisions there being only a very small, almost fixed set
of namespaces, which is why defining new namespaces requires standards
action.  In my opinion, the present document does not satisfactorily
explain why it is necessary to have a large number of namespaces intended
for itinerant use.

_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/secdir
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir