Re: [secdir] secdir re-review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03

"Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna@nortel.com> Wed, 09 September 2009 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <AMUHANNA@nortel.com>
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 C56123A6847; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, 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 l9yji7sgxiey; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6D53A67D3; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n89Ebl301841; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:37:47 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:37:44 -0500
Message-ID: <C5A96676FCD00745B64AE42D5FCC9B6E202BBF02@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ldvy6opc5cd.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: secdir re-review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03
Thread-Index: Acow5wkxkv3FWtimQJu1mr2OGcdP0AAc1IZg
References: <ldvtz0cy2a8.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu> <ldvy6opc5cd.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna@nortel.com>
To: "Tom Yu" <tlyu@MIT.EDU>, <secdir@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:20:49 -0700
Cc: kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com, meyer@umic.rwth-aachen.de, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir re-review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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/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, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:23 -0000

Hi Tom,
Sorry for the delay. It seems that Jouni's wrong email was copied. I
copied the correct one and he can add if necessary. Please see response
inline.

Regards,
Ahmad
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Yu [mailto:tlyu@MIT.EDU] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:47 PM
> To: secdir@ietf.org
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 
> jouni@gmail.com; julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com; 
> kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com; Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10); 
> meyer@umic.rwth-aachen.de
> Subject: secdir re-review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-03
> 
> This is a re-review of this document.  The document 
> incorporates some of my suggestions from the previous round.
> 
> Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>; writes:
> 
> > The Security Considerations section states:
> >
> >    The security considerations of the Diameter Base 
> protocol [RFC3588],
> >    Diameter EAP application [RFC4072], Diameter NASREQ application
> >    [RFC4005] and Diameter Mobile IPv6 integrated scenario 
> bootstrapping
> >    [RFC5447] are applicable to this document.
> >
> > Should a reference to RFC 4832 (Security Threats to NETLMM) be 
> > included here?  There appear to be no obvious additional security 
> > considerations beyond those mentioned in the above documents. (if 
> > including the suggested additional citation)
> 
> There has been no change in this area.  Do the authors feel 
> that the additional reference to "Security Threats to NETLMM" 
> is not necessary?

[Ahmad]
This draft does not add any new functionality to the MAG-LMA interface,
i.e., Proxy MIPv6 protocol. It only defines the interfaces MAG-HAAA and
LMA-HAAA. Thus, I am not sure referencing RFC4832 is relevant here.

> 
> >    In general, the Diameter messages may be transported 
> between the HA
> >    and the Diameter server via one or more AAA brokers or Diameter
> >    agents.  In this case the HA to the Diameter server AAA 
> communication
> >    rely on the security properties of the intermediate AAA 
> brokers and
> >    Diameter agents (such as proxies).
> >
> > "HA" as used above is not defined in the document, and is 
> used nowhere 
> > else in the document.  Is it a Home Agent?  (which is not really 
> > otherwise mentioned in this document)
> 
> This is also unchanged.  It would be useful to clarify if the 
> HA is a Home Agent, Home AAA Server, etc.
[Ahmad]
Sure, it is. Will clarify it.

> 
> > Editorial:
> >
> > "DER" and "DEA" are not defined.  I am fairly sure that 
> "DER" does not 
> > mean "Distinguished Encoding Rules" in this document.
> 
> This has not been fixed.  After further investigation, it 
> seems that these mean "Diameter EAP Request" and "Diameter 
> EAP Answer" as defined in RFC 4072.  Although the acronyms 
> are defined in a normative reference, and may be obvious to 
> readers already knowledgeable about the subject, please 
> consider expanding them in this document at least once.
[Ahmad]
No problem here too.

> 
> > The caption for Figure 4 crosses a page break, making it appear 
> > truncated.
> 
> This appears to have been fixed.
> 
> > draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support is now on revision #14, but is 
> > cited as "-11".
> 
> This appears to have been fixed.
>