Subject: Re: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:19:46 -0500

> In section 8, would it be appropriate to require that the XML is well
> formed and validated to prevent application and security issues?  I think
> a simple statement to that effect would be helpful in this document.

Hm.  I'm not sure I think it would be helpful.  When a document says
that you represent [fleeb] in XML, there's always the assumption that
you actually correctly implement the [fleeb] representation, and that
you do the XML correctly.  I don't think that explicitly saying that
would be any more useful than explicitly saying that you have to spell
the protocol key words correctly, that you have to do the arithmetic
correctly, or, for an ASN.1 protocol, that you have to get the ASN.1
right.  Of course you do.

If, perhaps, there's some situation you can think of where getting
some particular thing wrong opens up a particular security hole, maybe
it would be worth calling that out.  Otherwise, I don't see it.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:19:46 -0500

Barry

---

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:57:25 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be fine with seeing text in subsequent documents that tells you how
to handle non-conformance to the schema or other issues that might result
in a validation problem (if restrictions for this go beyond XML
conformance).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing the SecDir review from 2 years ago.  I see that you
have added text to 9.1 to say integrity protection and confidentiality
protections are to be supported by the transport protocol.  This and the
other considerations look good.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03495.html