[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Mon, 17 December 2012 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.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 225BE21F8B23; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:55:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKBQw4TM5zTT; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (mail2.ihtfp.org [IPv6:2001:4830:143:1::3a11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BAA21F8B1E; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8822602B2; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:55:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16904-06; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:54:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mocana.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::224:d7ff:fee7:8924]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cliodev.ihtfp.com", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (not verified)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D932602A4; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:54:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by mocana.ihtfp.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id qBHFstMv005771; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:54:55 -0500
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:54:54 -0500
Message-ID: <sjmvcc0r7w1.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Cc: r.jesske@telekom.de, worley@ariadne.com, martin.huelsemann@telekom.de, bliss-chairs@tools.ietf.org, alexeitsev@teleflash.com
Subject: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-18
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: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:55:04 -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.

   The call completion feature defined in this specification allows the
   caller of a failed call to be notified when the callee becomes
   available to receive a call.

The Security Considerations section mentions 'SPIT' but nowhere does
the document define the term.  What does it mean?

The SC section also mentions a "DoD" attack -- is the US Department of
Defence actually going to attack something?  Or does DoD mean
something else?  It's never defined.  Was this perhaps a typo of
"DoS", Denial of Service?  If so, I recommend you fix the typo but
also expand the acronym for those not necessarily familiar with the
term "DoS".

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant