[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-shin-augmented-pake-10

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Thu, 26 January 2012 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.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 3255121F8630 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:39:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JLZ9Qkb+y3FR for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951C921F8627 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYF00NWMGA556@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for secdir@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:39:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYF001GRGA5J9@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for secdir@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:39:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGO08844; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:39:39 +0800
Received: from SZXEML415-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.154) by szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:39:19 +0800
Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.225]) by szxeml415-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.154]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:39:49 +0800
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:39:32 +0000
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4F20D424.1060901@gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.128]
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Message-id: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C2830D4@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: SECDIR review of draft-shin-augmented-pake-10
Thread-index: AQHM3Htfakgv3SEVMEyWW1S7NY+DIA==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C27D872@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com> <4F20D424.1060901@gmail.com>
Cc: "draft-shin-augmented-pake@tools.ietf.org" <draft-shin-augmented-pake@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-shin-augmented-pake-10
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: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:39:50 -0000

Hi,
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.

I found some editorial glitches and the use of "temporal" when "temporary" was intended, but someone else can catch those.

Reference K11 is now RFC 6467. That means the Notify message type and the GSPM payload type have now been assigned (16424 and 49 respectively) and can be inserted into the document where it currently says "TBD".

The request to IANA names the wrong registry. The correct name is "IKEv2 Secure Password Methods" registry, established by RFC 6467.

The relationship between this document and RFC 6467 is odd. In the ordinary course of events this document would have a normative dependency on RFC 6467. It is obvious that the latter was written after the present document, and avoidance of the dependency was deliberate on both sides. Still, the authors of this document might reconsider, even though RFC 6467 would be a down-reference since it is Informational.


Tina