[secdir] Subject correction: Security directorate review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Fri, 16 August 2013 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@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 6DA9F21F9CF1; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 bdwTInb-HsmO; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-x229.google.com (mail-vb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C7921F9CF3; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g17so2098108vbg.0 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+uIAc25z9l/CCJ82r1+x4VBF4Tb//ebpS0ycullNTNY=; b=BbrrWeJaEyuuE/D5vFjoTt6EkcgitFsf0gz+PV0eg1aUdnfi7Qw1KYPsu7xr9EB/2O 0op8OK2LMR6b3B58Wu63nIJq22YQvyA1FJG8gfylg1v6RwouXgjgw3o0jdVqUau4PLEZ ZSXI4LuF/he3OZ/4xvspueU6FYlpJacn2THUF44LC5sWZN6rVRdEBguaRqhpBsvnUNOo WhyxVs5TtCTqATQdpFs32OvXYEjyz7IG/TDgejabZ5nZfMF0RF6ax4WJvfMWGuQyqJYJ d3oRfT+YwW+XvMQwgdgUpp7d/AoGyXnW66s3lb2VIDHI0GOdqirLkf/Hcgp9qKG1+3TI OOuw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.199.5 with SMTP id eq5mr193242vcb.16.1376697111228; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.36.115 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:51:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajj4ZetVAa-PPv1LGw35AdhTZ4gyEpCsE9+dzikzOHC61vEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Magnus_Nystr=F6m?= <magnusn@gmail.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "<draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5db26a47381704e4194649
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] Subject correction: Security directorate review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid
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: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:51:59 -0000

Sorry for using the wrong Subject: line.
/M

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com>; wrote:

> 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.
>
> This avtcore document describes a new method for generating unique RTCP
> canonical names and obsoletes RFC 6222.
> The Security Considerations section seems adequate to me.
>
> (A few side comments:
> - RFC 6222 is mentioned in several places (e.g., Section 1, Section 8).
> Should it not also be a reference?
> - In Section 4.2, it is stated that, if the RTP endpoint is in a
> virtualized environment, then the MAC address may not be unique. In such
> cases, the host shall use the other presented option for short-term
> persistent RTP CNAMEs. I wonder if it in general is possible for an RTCP
> endpoint to deterministically determine if its MAC address is unique? It is
> not in general possible for a process to detect if it is running in a
> virtualized OS.)
>
> Thanks,
> -- Magnus
>