Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 02 September 2020 01:04 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 AB5143A08EC for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BJb47sGmE656 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1186C3A08EB for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 18:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 082142eN001221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 1 Sep 2020 21:04:06 -0400
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 18:04:02 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200902010402.GC16914@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <159708526736.13725.2565339809870274299@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <159708526736.13725.2565339809870274299@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/l5vp0P8Vi7PCCeJk-NOHhxeDxsM>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 02 Sep 2020 01:04:12 -0000
Thanks, Kyle. I had no other comments to add (but I did mention the leap seconds topic once more in my No Objection ballot). -Ben On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:47:47AM -0700, Kyle Rose via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Kyle Rose > Review result: Has Nits > > 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 document is ready with nits. I see no issues of interest to the security > directorate. > > I do have three comments, however: > > * In the security considerations section, a better example might be the > potential inappropriateness of using an imprecise mechanism for specifying > certificate expiration. > > * It's not clear how this is intended to work for dates prior to the start of > the Gregorian calendar in 1582. What do negative integer values mean when they > imply a date before 15-Oct-1582? Is the Gregorian calendar defined for all > time? In a brief investigation, I've been unable to find the answer to this. > > * In a very gross sense, this specification *is* actually tied to the > prevailing timescale, leap seconds and all: if the whole world were to > transition from UTC to TAI and stop adding leap seconds, presumably > implementations would continue to generate dates for this specification by > truncating the local timestamp to the date, which would cause it to drift along > with TAI away from UTC over time. There wouldn't be a huge practical effect > here given how little they are expected to diverge over the foreseeable future, > but it would mean that dates encoded in this format today would not carry > enough information to precisely indicate a date in the far future even if the > target timescale were understood throughout since the source timescale isn't > part of the encoding. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cb… Kyle Rose via Datatracker
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Mike Jones
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Mike Jones
- Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review … Benjamin Kaduk