[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc

Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 23 August 2017 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
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 D0249132935; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 VRXycAXZm2EV; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x243.google.com (mail-it0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::243]) (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 22D501323B8; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x243.google.com with SMTP id l200so275568itl.2; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version; bh=HiRzoXsCA4mrL/BmtrSG/1zBTSdOAvb7nmQhw4vZQcA=; b=swI1CCQJg03JQdbpdT4GDkZ3fFoPRvem69Amg+Gaw9RmeJCgc+fTFGx7o1gYAdwihF Hei27X5iJOWUCbhk039I4ztYHdELywjavBXWQZID5JsBwFG/EJ55D4xVpLqV2IkowZIj Bf3smMmi5VQAidGfc4wqIVhN6MVEUyYSgV7nB9KQai92J14fjDaWlSOInUkN+I8dExvM XCY9nkFR3pPLJLBJXx1E3zSkQ4I4HjZiNFZ60trOTIwTIVXfEjWcaw5KQmwfHx4UYJ/C MTv0Rz2YjIaiKVvDrbanCppLf+OKHdOkLHdZiJs9IKcKFfKobUY7AdxFtz0mSGtbhdNF GlEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version; bh=HiRzoXsCA4mrL/BmtrSG/1zBTSdOAvb7nmQhw4vZQcA=; b=NEybkenw1tehJVCoK/8FDcIVryCGBq2cmkKfYmfYyUGtKcgY3v4w4jgy7gnqjMIqsu w+LFw6JjSxEPYF/Lf6UqMNXj/MBMvVVaMDPbH3Y4vjhtcVXpkDXeWfyzno/7dFpmqFJU 82N4WIV7uSzVG3uIvfOrX+9iczhTQ8btPFc06R5/Il/TAyNo6N82dAO7GcZf2w8dA1w7 aFbQ9TeF9CHORzq3sCHXL+uhFjXIhUFlwX1ZxGunlP2wVhI+id/7eh6Ch7tMAkhmvR0c XudXUF6cRQq4onR3FNm74aCimdwCEQny8j7OSPN2zUuD7qbc0EWY2QA2GNkvnUS/QuXg USQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5iSjaIhrVLyMI0ZQFqLWOwkxmU2RLonYfE/beM3AWjt5RcCK3UT Y3xWhIhIl0BC/CiX
X-Received: by 10.36.103.201 with SMTP id u192mr4160781itc.46.1503515283234; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chriss-air.smd.local ([216.201.230.154]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 193sm1039528ioo.84.2017.08.23.12.08.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc.all@ietf.org
From: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <599DD291.4080906@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:08:01 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070309090604060109040901"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/gtDzu3HeUNgIrhExPj_-u9SafqI>
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:08:06 -0000

Hi,

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 that the ID is ready with nits.

This INFORMATIONAL draft discusses an experimental protocol. The 
Security Considerations section is adequate, but I would suggest 
including a brief statement that implementers should also be aware of 
the Security Considerations sections of RFC 3124 (normatively 
referenced), and RFCs 5348 and 7478 (both informatively referenced). 
Each of of these RFCs is discussed within the draft.

I also agree with Section 5 of the Shepherd Writeup, and nothing need be 
done to the draft about that.

   This is a heavily transport related draft, being focussed entirely
   on details of congestion control. Security considerations are adequate,
   although they will likely need elaboration for a future standards-track
   revision of this work in the light of operational experience. The draft
   says little about operational complexity, and the risks of cheating and
   poor quality implementations, but this will depend on the experiences
   with the protocol, and cannot effectively be done without experimentation
   and controlled deployment experience.


Regards,
Chris