Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 01 February 2011 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 C874F3A6FF8; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:14:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 UXT-oWVcJ3EX; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D113A6FE2; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p11JGmYY020737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:16:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D485C20.6080800@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:16:48 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
References: <5ABE30CE099A524CBF95C715D37BCACC03A28634@nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ABE30CE099A524CBF95C715D37BCACC03A28634@nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09
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: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:14:02 -0000

Hi, Sandy,

On 2/1/2011 11:07 AM, Murphy, Sandra 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.
...
> There is a required format for communication of a request to the IANA, I
> presume by email. I did not see any mention of the email address to
> which the request should be sent (RFC5226 also doesn’t seem to mention it).

It's a web form. The doc refers to that in Sec 2:

    Information about the assignment procedures for the port registry has
    existed in three locations: the forms for requesting port number
    assignments on the IANA web site [SYSFORM][USRFORM], an introductory
    text section in the file listing the port number assignments
    themselves (known as the port numbers registry) [PORTREG], and two
    brief sections of the IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780].

I.e., communication is initiated through the forms.

> The procedure requires that the same previous Assignee (or Contact) make
> any subsequent request about a port/name assignment, where the email
> address is provided in the request. Security question: how does the IANA
> know that it is communicating with the same Assignee/Contact? There’s no
> recommendation for security of that communication.

Can you clarify what that would mean? I am not aware of any IETF process 
that requires presenting credentials beyond an email address.

> In the IANA section there is a paragraph:
>
>       IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in the service
>       name and port number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the
>       "Protocol and Service Names"  registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not
>       already have one assigned.
>
> Are there no guidelines for creating the new service name?

See Sec 8.1. The new assignment procedure allows for service names to be 
requested without port numbers

Joe