Hi, Stephen,
Sorry for the late reply. We was in Chinese National Holiday. Please see my
reply below.
Best regards,
Sheng
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hanna [mailto:shanna(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:56 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
secdir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-04.txt
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 document discusses several ways that DHCPv6 can be used
with Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA), pointing
out benefits and concerns. While the document does discuss
security issues in several places, it often lapses into vague
terminology like "one should carefully consider the impact on
security". Given that the primary benefit of using CGAs is to
improve security by providing address validation without
complex key distribution, carefully analyzing security issues
seems necessary for this document.
On the other hand, the Document Shepherd Write-up for this
document says "The WG was not very energetic on this
document. The document describes possible applications of
CGAs and DHCP interaction and when the WG was asked whether
there was enough interest to work on solutions, the reply was
silence. As such, the consensus is based on most of the WG
being indifferent." So maybe this document is only intended
as a sketch of possible issues that can be explored later in
a more in-depth document if someone is interested in doing
so. If that's the case, maybe it's OK to not fully analyze
all the security implications. However, in that case, I think
the Security Considerations section should state clearly that
this document does not contain a complete security analysis
and any further work in this area should include such an
analysis. Nobody should implement the techniques described in
this document without conducting that more thorough analysis.
I guess that's the case. I am fine to add the statement you suggested into the
security
considerations.
I noticed a few typos. On page 6, the word "certificated"
should be "certified". Three sentences later, "depend on
policies" should be "depending on policies". And the draft
names in the Change Log say "dhacpv6" instead of "dhcpv6".
Thanks. We will fix it with other comments in the future version.
Regards,
Sheng
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf