Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-nsis-ext-06

Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@oracle.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 844323A67F4; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
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 fMdqiSlTa28M; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com (rcsinet10.oracle.com [148.87.113.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B033A67E3; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o3JNI7gt032730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:18:09 GMT
Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o3JLcuVJ021864; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:18:04 GMT
Received: from abhmt005.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 172428781271719075; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:17:55 -0700
Received: from [129.150.12.239] (/129.150.12.239) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:17:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4BCCE4A1.1030009@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:17:53 -0600
From: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100214 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: elwynd@folly.org.uk
References: <4BA48592.8040804@sun.com> <4BA4EB7D.3080702@folly.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4BA4EB7D.3080702@folly.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Auth-Type: Internal IP
X-Source-IP: rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4BCCE4B3.00CD:SCFMA4539811,ss=1,fgs=0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:57:34 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-nsis-ext.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-nsis-ext-06
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:18:26 -0000

I have reviewed revision 07 of this draft and find that the requested 
updates have been sufficiently made.

Thanks,

Shawn.
--
On 03/20/10 09:36 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
>
> The suggestion about RFC 4081 is well taken.
>
> I will take the editorials under advisement!
>
> Regards,
> Elwyn
>
> Shawn M Emery wrote:
>    
>> 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 draft describes is an informational document that provides an
>> overview of the Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) set of protocols, how
>> to deploy said protocols, and how to extend the set of NSIS protocols.
>>
>> The security considerations section does exist and gives guidance for
>> any extensions to the NSIS protocol set.  It then talks about using
>> authentication, integrity checks, and authorization for any NSIS
>> supported routers.
>>
>> The section continues guidance for extensions by making sure they
>> leverage NSIS' lower layer transport authentication and that any new
>> transport protocols created support NSIS' low layer authentication and
>> integrity check capabilities.
>>
>> I think this section should include a reference to RFC 4081 for the
>> possible attack scenarios for NSIS when considering an extension to
>> the NSIS protocol set.
>>
>> General comments:
>>
>> None.
>>
>> Editorial comments:
>>
>> 3. The General Internet Signaling Transport
>>
>> s/in future/in the future/
>>
>>
>> 8. Extending the Protocols
>>
>> s/identified in future/identified in the future/
>>
>>      
>
>