[secdir] draft-ietf-behave-ftp64

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Sun, 05 June 2011 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 5D9DE21F84DF; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s7HFXOGk2P6e; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BE321F84BC; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so1736603gxk.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PoiRyWpBBu0Ccl7LiEA8LBM2XsIYu9KEOvh8wo2m0a8=; b=KO8M05qAefT4J9j71EZswu7YbS1xcgXosG+veHnq4PzHJ7D7qCY4KjMWpw27MCFRti bOeqWWby51uS5ZMSlTyHg70BW2+AHhufKw7Ja9zYidsfGRzzs+9B4Yb+E3MtvM1DbMDg c+IyNJrb1TAQe8eV4SVVwbWutXOwzVnutDLg8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=uJtD6YGBVwjHNzRkArLPIPBTeA64ZfF1LCS8WNu2JrnHs/BxxcB9Q3WE0d1BQTUvR4 emQY/dFlXQHV94EdrFDwo/ZHG1IcoCmjTyp/qgkpS0pPuEKBVILOQK9Gaf4+tA7XioBJ cJvBot/7ogx9z0TuCH1Rbkc+dZaF4dkyo2Tkg=
Received: by 10.151.123.20 with SMTP id a20mr3672709ybn.157.1307306693096; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.144.3 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 16:44:33 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimw5qiP=-fLo4-GRQUYptFHvYxU3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-behave-ftp64.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-behave-ftp64
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: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:54 -0000

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.

This draft is about trying to secure access to IPv4 FTP servers from
IPv6 clients. The results are not terribly encouraging but I find they
are quite accurately described in the Security Considerations Section
and I don't think you could do much better given a requirement to work
with existing FTP servers.

I have a bit of a problem with the title  ("An FTP ALG for
IPv6-to-IPv4 translation") and the slant of some of the wording. It
claims to be able to describe, as an Application Level Gateway,
various recommendations which are then combined with a separate
existing IPv6-to-IPv4 ALG. It talks about multiple ALGs being
implemented at a single entity that are handling an single FTP
session. This just all seems very odd to me as it isn't very clear
what the interface between these different ALGs all somehow
cooperating on one session is. I believe, in reality, anyone
implementing this will take an existing ALG and modify it as suggested
in the draft. The draft would therefore make more sense if written as
suggested changes to a single ALG rather than as an additional ALG
that is somehow compounded with an existing FTP ALG... Just my
opinion.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com