Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 SecDir review
Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Tue, 06 March 2012 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 3DA1021E8024 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:31:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XI3HT8YjHTpb for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:31:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694AD21F8658 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so4650215pbb.31 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GjrVtLiMNP29kt/h3ROnpC5qUW+Hnly1gcNXlVyZqJA=; b=z6RdjJD1x7PL3VRyDLQYtrNGoeqjga0bZ8TEGEPjCQL3Qe3SOAKr/iZEl8eAu5Mvx4 btRAF38DwqPCaGJKR3p7XbirVNornOeJp8pXwZQIKXjAqWBEEuI3g7pbOZF5sWjHDhq5 BSSq/A6/ae6KhSh5MWww0+o8ebKas9PC3k1bM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.239.195 with SMTP id vu3mr7009pbc.49.1331065862098; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.43.105 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:31:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGNcaTK2D-OX=7NW-UVz1PiuS-68ZJSDm5zMt5Wdei69A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEGNcaTK2D-OX=7NW-UVz1PiuS-68ZJSDm5zMt5Wdei69A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:31:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC9+bAxQCgJwtkWCVEETXq=AzqF+qZR_qo+OXnPwT5CF3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b33d5cce20ee204ba98ebbc"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQS+/9w67ytbyOGH+LnJeP5nwK1ML7PWYWwI3m6g0duf97USHYFqXSyW/rPbYCv/ZfKamd
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:37:31 -0800
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 SecDir review
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 20:31:06 -0000
Dear Donald, thank you very much for your review of the draft. We have addressed your comment about section 8.1 and 9.1 in a new revision which we just submitted. Best regards Ulrich On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote: > My apologies for getting this review in late. > > 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. > > Overall, I do not have security concerns with this document. See > comments below. > > This document describes "signature" and "time" building blocks for > constructing messages/packets as described in RFC 5444. There is > actually noticeable overlap with Section 7.1 of RFC 5444, enough that > I am inclined to say that this draft should indicate the it Updates > 5444. > > The Security Considerations Section says "... has the same security > considerations as [RFC5444]." In turn, RFC 5444 says "This > specification does not describe a protocol; it describes a packet > format. As such, it does not specify any security considerations; > these are matters for a protocol using this specification." :-) But, > in fact, the Security Considerations Section of 5444 continues with > design suggestions for authentication/integrity and confidentiality. > Arguably, this draft provides a more detailed syntax with some > processing rules for authentication/integrity with signatures > extending 5444. But it still defers much to any specific MANET > protocol making use of RFC 5444, this draft, and probably additional > "building block" drafts or RFCs. > > It appears that the MANET WG is approaching all this through a series of > overlapping documents each of which is of limited content but provides > more details. For example, this draft sets up hash function and > cryptographic function IANA registries but provides only the identity > function as initial content for these registries. Presumably additional > documents will request allocations from these registries for other > functions. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach and > trying to produce large monolithic documents can have problems. But a > swarm of smaller inter-related and partly overlapping documents can be > confusing. > > Section 8.1 and 9.1: These sections provide that when adding a packet > or message signature TLV, respectively, any pre-existing packet or > messages signature "MUST" be removed, etc., before signature calculation > but > only "SHOULD" be restored afterwards. I would have guessed that > "SHOULD" would be a "MUST". In any case, it might be good to say when > you don't need to restore a signature TLV, which I would assume would > be if that signature TLV is not needed by the recipient. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com >
- [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 SecDir … Donald Eastlake
- Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 Sec… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-08 Sec… Donald Eastlake