Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-security (ending 4/29)
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 22 April 2019 09:58 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE80812003F for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 02:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 6wDPpomPe6On for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 02:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161EC12001B for <taps@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 02:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39E4D1B0023F; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:58:25 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5CBD9040.8000009@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:58:24 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
CC: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "Rose, Kyle" <krose@akamai.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
References: <82AE6091-A19F-4478-9C96-47A2E05908FD@gmail.com> <B8E53553-2464-40C1-97C5-2E717A57618C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8E53553-2464-40C1-97C5-2E717A57618C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/u8w8Ag0EbZGu3PcqjZ4aRKC6OYU>
Subject: Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-security (ending 4/29)
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 09:58:39 -0000
Review of draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-06. I have read the above document as a transport person, and contributor to the group and think this document contains the material that was discussed by the working group and is very near a version that is ready to publish. I have a number of comments below. Scoping and potential use to endorse non-ietf protocols: As a technical question to the Chairs/AD - does the document need to carry some caveat about non-IETF protocols being standardised outside the RFC-series and not making a statement on recommending or otherwise endorsing their use? Abstract I think the abstract should define “TAPS”. probably this should also be defined when first used also in the body of the text. Similarly protocol names such as: Transport Layer Security (TLS), TCP-AO, ALTs, BGP, AH, IKE,etc should be defined when first used, and abbreviations such as MAC (PRF), EAP, ALPN, Server Name Indication (SNI), DoS, PKI. Abbreviations “starting with TLS 1.3” - should there be a reference here? “NAT rebindings” - should there be a reference to one of the BEHAVE RFCs here? I think I-D.ietf-tls-tls13 has been published as RFC 8446 X.509 certificates are mentioned in 4.10.1, and could benefit from a reference. authenticates the payload using HMAC is mentioned in 4.10.1, and could benefit from a reference. In section 4.2: “DTLS is modified from TLS to operate with the possibility of packet loss, reordering, and duplication that may occur when operating over UDP. “ - I think this can be used over datagram protocols, and it would be worth saying that and adding ane maple of: Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) RFC 5238 Typo in reference format?: “{{I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13}” In Section 4.2.2: - Could you provide a cross-reference to the section in “ See also the features from TLS.” Comments on the text: I support Aaron’s comment on the term “network security layer” - do we need to use the term layer here, since this is expected to be placed below the transport API? In Section 4.2.3. (on Protocol Dependencies) o DTLS relies on UDP. - or any datagram service? (see above note on DTLS over DCCP as an example.), in 4.93 the text says “An unreliable transport protocol such as UDP.” - which could be more appropriate? “Path MTU discovery.” - Could we write this as “discovery of the Path MTU” to explicitly not say use the name of a protocol here? In Section 4.3.1: “The QUIC transport layer support multiple streams” - insert “s” after “support”. “Once TLS completes, QUIC uses the resultant traffic secrets to for the QUIC connection to protect the rest of the streams.” Replace “to for” by “for”? “Owing to middlebox ossification issues, tcpcrypt only protects the payload portion of a TCP packet. It does not encrypt any header information, such as the TCP sequence number.” - I am not sure I agree with the implication here! - Would it be OK to state this more neutrally as: “Because of the possible presence of firewalls and other middleboxes on the path, tcpcrypt only protects the payload portion of a TCP packet. It does not encrypt any header information, such as the TCP sequence number.” Security Considerations: Section 8 uses a RFC2119 keyword: “ Applications using Security Interfaces SHOULD take such limitations into consideration when using a particular protocol implementation.” - I suggest replacing this by “ought to”? Acknowledgments NiT: “Theresa Enghardt” is an editor and an acknowledged contributor, suggest you remove the name from the ACK section. References The references have not been divided into normative and informative references. I am unsure/uneasy at this time if this list of references all need to be normative. - In particular, some non-IETF documents are cited as normative references. This strikes me as difficult to justify and something that needs careful consideration. - I am concerned there are normative references to quite a number of Internet drafts. Are these necessary - if these need to be normative then the WG needs to consider if this may block publication of the document for some time to come! - I note that in RFC 8095 we chose to make all protocol references informational. Security This review was from a viewpoint of providing transport oversight. I did not review the summary table contents nor the assertions on which mechanisms were present in which protocols, where security expertise is needed.
- [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-securit… Aaron Falk
- Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-sec… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-sec… Aaron Falk
- Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-sec… Aaron Falk
- Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-sec… Tommy Pauly
- Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-sec… Philipp S. Tiesel
- Re: [Taps] WGLC for draft-ietf-taps-transport-sec… Aaron Falk