Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob

Jean-Michel Combes <> Fri, 04 December 2009 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4A428C0EF; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56ZNEiGH-kQ1; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA7028C108; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn33 with SMTP id 33so1875152iwn.29 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:31:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PyleZEuPI9kuajwlwrF96xn9RUNb2yRee89ENx9shME=; b=tu3HUszb37yWIGGmdkJ3ec8+ti5bZEzCybZW/4I09c3cdXLmriEPvuAAFFw0jsjfdk 2Hz2fQydtKHqOKJns6YpL2C3hH2AlcjNlaRtUYT+mQVl1R0vV9Inz2xf72QUsvjdyXFq VjMsPPjeYHxLGhQqUvDi6qRK6+XTusMSvD2nc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xbr0+NV6sb4zVjRcUDmbX+cKWRmAKvyBjUPZpxBClzkJCB/IqM3TQKm+tgZBurtaNu CdxqRlOEfH4a90E9PR8ttwEuhhEFOq79/u6JLtwAGLygRmfXYZKBsqSMETZElnRVvhCh B+WVSMB0NT05TlJ+ybINJ4zhKI85m1nuMMxd8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id w16mr2695753ibb.38.1259947875993; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:31:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:31:15 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:19:11 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:31:32 -0000

Hi Stephen,

at first, thanks for your review.

2009/12/1 Stephen Farrell <>ie>:
> (Re-tx, messed up draft address 1st tiime, please cc
> on any response)
> 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 draft is a generally well-written description of some issues with
> securing neighbour discovery when proxies are involved. As a problem
> statement draft I find it just fine.
> I have two minor security comments and a few nits below.
> Stephen.
> 1. The suggestion at the end of 4.2 that certificate serial number
> or time field ordering be used to indicate relationships between
> end entities seems very hacky. I'd suggest either deleting that
> if its felt to be unlikely used, or else, if its actually
> likely to be used, then documenting how it could actually work

OK. I am going to delete the text in the new version of the draft.

> 2. 7.2 mentions "signed, non-repudiable certificates" which is a
> horribly odd phrase. Hopefully that's just sloppy language.
> (s/signed, non-repudiable//), but if not, then its a concern (the
> concern being that non-repudiation in protocols is mythical).

OK. I am going to delete "signed, non-repudiable" in the new version
of the draft.

> Nits:
> 1. 2nd last para of 3.1: fix word ordering in last sentence, think it
> ought say:
>  Such a message would be valid according to the SEND specification, if the
>  Target Address and the source IPv6 address of the Neighbor Advertisement
>  weren't different [RFC3971].

In fact, I am going to change the sentence as follows:
"To be valid according to the SEND specification, the Target Address
of the Neighbor Advertisement message would need to be replaced also
to be equal to the Source Address [RFC3971]."
The reason is that the Source Address and the Target Address are
required to be equal (cf. RFC3971, section 7.4).
Is it OK for you such a change?

> 2. 2.2.4 1st para: similar word ordering, maybe:
>  The router or CA may then be able to certify proxying for
>  only a subset of the prefixes for which it is certified.

OK. Fixed in the new version of the draft.

> 3. 1st sentence of 7.2: s/The certificagte delegation/Certificate
> delegation/

OK. Fixed in the new version of the draft.

Thanks again for your review.

Best regards.