Re: [stir] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 03 July 2021 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD183A1F51 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 11:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 rBfQiRTzf6gw for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 11:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A4A13A1F52 for <stir@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 11:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B65300BFA for <stir@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Ujf6R2-PfMh6 for <stir@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D453300512; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210703175810.GZ17170@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:24:02 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4A3F4DAF-FE54-447A-A4FB-B8F8A6C63626@vigilsec.com>
References: <162491913776.24561.10295832590740387025@ietfa.amsl.com> <11C48644-9EED-4686-AC7D-FE43D626E92C@vigilsec.com> <20210703175810.GZ17170@mit.edu>
To: Ben Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/ZTv5ugk_fr29mECiKRAwivtdqeA>
Subject: Re: [stir] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 18:24:13 -0000

Ben:

> Trimming the bits that look good...
> 
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:22:04AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Ben:
>> 
>> Turning to the comments ...
>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [...]
>>> Section 7
> [...]
>>>  Certificate issuers should not include an entry in mustExclude for
>>>  the "rcdi" claim for a certificate that will be used with the
>>>  PASSporT Extension for Rich Call Data defined in
>>>  [I-D.ietf-stir-passport-rcd].  Excluding this claim would prevent the
>>>  integrity protection mechanism from working properly.
>>> 
>>> I'd consider prefacing this paragraph with something like "For example",
>>> as otherwise one might wonder why this particular claim is so important
>>> to call out in this document's security considerations.
>> 
>> Rob asked for SHOULD NOT.  And if you look at the structure in [I-D.ietf-stir-passport-rcd], the integrity really does depend on this claim.
> 
> Yes, it's clear that the integrity of RCD does depend on the claim in
> question.
> It's less clear that enhance-rfc8226 is the best place to make that
> restriction, which could also be imposed by draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd
> itself.  In short, "why is this claim so important that it gets called out
> by name in an otherwise generic specification?".
> 
> What's in the document now is factually correct, so I don't mind having it
> there; it just seems a little surprising to call out one specific external
> claim and not say why only that one is mentioned.

That was my reason for the original wording.  However, as you say, having both this document and draft=ietf-stir-passport-rcd make this statement is not really a problem.

Russ