Re: [secdir] Secdir Review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-08

Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Tue, 24 November 2015 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4661A6F02; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:24:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 6I2nduf8DtKW; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:24:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 172291A6EE6; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:24:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1a1DaK-0004Ug-BK; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:24:40 +0100
Received: from mailserv2bcas.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.96.56] helo=mailserv2.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1a1DaK-0003d4-7R; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:24:40 +0100
Received: from [128.7.5.36] (128.7.5.36) by MAILSERV2BCAS.lorien.fkie.fgan.de (128.7.96.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:24:39 +0100
To: Dacheng <zhang_dacheng@hotmail.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP2489108BA79EA7032F2495A881F0@phx.gbl> <564AF000.4080705@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <BLU436-SMTP8927E2E6FAC81702121D7588070@phx.gbl>
From: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <56546516.5090409@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:24:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP8927E2E6FAC81702121D7588070@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms080505090109060609000605"
X-Originating-IP: [128.7.5.36]
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.98.1/21091/Tue Nov 24 06:36:04 2015) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de
X-Scan-Signature: cf4e294f566e9b0166dbdd65a574298f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/rOEmAEjiwFN4sIOX3AdhMJaHcaM>
Cc: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir Review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:24:43 -0000

Am 23.11.2015 um 08:04 schrieb Dacheng:
> It is fine. I just tried to give some comments to make this section
> looks better, and I understand your point. In addition, maybe you could
> mention at the end of the fist paragraph that the methods of protecting
> against the MITM attacks performed by rogue routers are out of scope.

I will add a sentence mentioning MITM attacks are out of scope.

> Ok, you have answered my second question, and I think you are right.
>   The first comment about this sentence is to replace  “signature
> mechanism “ with “security mechanism”, because only there is only a HMAC
> mechanism specified in RFC 7183, right?

RFC7183 uses only a single type of signature described in RFC7182 
(SHA256 HMAC).

I will change the wording to "security mechanism".

Henning Rogge

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de