[secdir] secdir review of kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework-01

David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcgrew@cisco.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 92A6A21F8922; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 291ifXs1js7X; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EE521F888A; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mcgrew@cisco.com; l=2295; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1314111144; x=1315320744; h=message-id:from:to:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version:subject:date:cc; bh=TUL+en/SkTMxjfJLzL/oRKxiZolaiZwChp0Mc/3s6KI=; b=aSsQefKfFSTx3u9jG5iMYAWNIfGYZjYS8nmkjgPgcssTnO1DJwuiWezf NdwK/s3eQWORauQKvDoYWCNwUJnaP9wxGTuxEM6MljeA8SIEssBd6zjpZ 92v11/JIQADRuB9WeaF1M1L2yrq3mAHmzzT1UckbpZyuWWnDQM0N7QgKX 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwEADS+U05Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABBqBx3gVkBFBECP0uBKKQkAZ8wg0eCIl8Eh2GLOIUNjA0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,270,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="51667482"
Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2011 14:52:21 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([10.86.252.244]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7NEqIvG006925; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:52:19 GMT
Message-Id: <2CC18677-7F6F-4F33-877D-C9043298650B@cisco.com>
From: David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:52:17 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of kivinen-ipsecme-secure-password-framework-01
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, 23 Aug 2011 14:51:18 -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.  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.

The intended status of this document is Informational, but in some  
sense it is performing actions with implications for standards.  It  
implies, but does not state, that IANA should not allocate the "IKEv2  
Authentication Method" numbers requested by three experimental drafts  
([1], [2], [3]).  The motivation for this draft is that "each of ([1],  
[2], [3]) used different method to negotiate" the use of the method,  
but it does not clarify where the difficulty arises - each of those  
three documents defines its own IKEv2 Authentication Method.

The Security Considerations section punts to [1], [2], and [3], but  
this document would be more useful if it provided a comparison of the  
existing methods.  There are some signficiant differences (for  
instance, [2] has special considerations for RFC5282, but [1] and [3]  
do not), and the absence of a securty analysis puts a burden on the  
user of the framework.

The document has many nits, and needs an editorial pass.  Some  
suggested changes below:

Abstract:
"This document specifies a common way so those methods can agree on  
which method is to be used in current connection." -> "This document  
specifies a way to agree on which method is to be used in current  
connection. "
Introduction:
"As each of those documents used different method to negotiate the use  
of the method ..." -> "As each of those documents used a different  
technique to negotiate the use of the method ..."
I suggest removing "This document does not create new protocol or even  
define a protocol which could be used to do anything."
Section 2.
"The proposed negotiation exchange would be:" -> "The secure password  
negotiation exchange is:"
IANA Considerations:
"TBD Secure Password Authentication Method" -> " TBD Generic Secure  
Password Authentication Method"
notes:
[1] harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth
[2] kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2
[3] shin-augmented-pake