IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 21 January 2021 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 2FC493A1371 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:48:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dtnvY6Hds7zZ for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48E733A137A for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 10LHmZgq019677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:48:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:48:35 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210121174835.GC21@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160744443645.5849.4437345323739394566@ietfa.amsl.com> <MWHPR08MB3520690D353D67440E72958AF7D20@MWHPR08MB3520.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR08MB3520690D353D67440E72958AF7D20@MWHPR08MB3520.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/wFi-TFGwfcg0830CDDFPcyMROqU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:48:44 -0000

Russ, thanks for the review -- well spotted!
Jorge, thanks for the updates.
I entered a No Objection ballot.

-Ben

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 03:52:31PM +0000, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) wrote:
> Hi Russ,
> 
> The references to SEND are not needed. It was just an example.
> Since it is not appropriate, I removed the references to RFC 3971.
> 
> I also addressed your other editorial comments in the other email.
> Thank you very much!
> Jorge
> 
> 
> From: Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM
> To: secdir@ietf.org <secdir@ietf.org>
> Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd.all@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>
> Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> I 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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2020-12-08
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-15
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Has Issues
> 
> 
> Major Concerns:  I worry about the reference to SEND (RFC 3971).  The
>   SEND protocol only supports digital signatures using RSA with SHA-1.
>   While this still might be adequate for the time scales associated
>   with ND, the 80-bit security offered by SHA-1 is not considered
>   adequate for digital signatures in general.  Is the reference to
>   SEND really needed in this document?
> 
> 
> Minor Concerns:  None
> 
> 
> Nits:  The Gen-ART review by me includes some editorial suggestions.
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email