Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call (WGLC): draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-04.txt

From: George Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:09:51 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Gorry,

first off, a question about this draft: I'm assuming it is planned for
"informational RFC" status, correct?  just checking, since there are no
MUST/SHOULD ;o)

in section 8, the "Security Considerations" should mention that when the
optional IPDVB SNDU security mechanisms are present, ARP and ND security
becomes nearly at rough parity with a private wireless LAN. The ARP or ND
multicast transmissions will be accepted only from those peer DVB
terminals that share a common group encryption and common group
authentication key provided by SNDU key management.

Whereas, without that optional ULE security extension, security is
dependent on the Adversary not cracking into the DVB satellite receiver
terminal to eavesdrop on the ARP or ND packets addressed to any other DVB
terminal in the satellite network. If a DVB terminal is cracked open, then
the Adversary could then issue bogus ARP or ND packets, masquerading as a
legitimate peer in the ARP or ND protocols.

there would also need to be an informational reference added to point at
the IPDVB ULE security extension draft (which I'm assuming will become a
proposed standard RFC someday).

hth,
	George

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> This note starts the ipdvb WG Last Call for comments for the WG document
> named below:
>
> draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-04.txt
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipdvb/draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar/
>
> This last call will end on 18th July 2006.
>
> The period of this last call has been extended because it also includes
> the week of the IETF meeting.
>
> You are asked to read the draft and send any issues, comments, or
> corrections to this mailing list. The WGLC procedure is the last chance
> for this working group to modify/correct this.
>
> Please do forward any comments to the ipdvb list.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry Fairhurst
> (ipdvb WG Chair)
>

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:38:24 -0400

On 6/7/06 13:09, "George Gross" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> "informational RFC" status, correct?
>
Yes.

> just checking, since there are no MUST/SHOULD ;o)
>
Good question, let's discuss this in the ipdvb WG meeting: I can see there
are places were more formal language could be used, even in an Informational
document.
> legitimate peer in the ARP or ND protocols.
OK, that seems a reasonable addition. The current text says:

   There are known security issues relating to the use of unsecured
   address resolution [RFC3756].  Readers are also referred to the
   known security issues when mapping IP addresses to MAC/NPA addresses
   using ARP [RFC826] and ND [RFC2461]. It is recommended that AR
   protocols support authentication of the source of AR messages and
   the integrity of the AR information, this avoids known security
   vulnerabilities resulting from insertion of unauthorised AR messages
   within a L2 infrastructure.  For IPv6, the SEND protocol [RFC3971]
   may be used in place of ND. This defines security mechanisms that
   can protect AR. 

Does the following additional paragraph capture this?:

   AR protocols can also be protected by the use of L2 security methods
   (e.g. Encryption of the ULE SNDU [ID-IPDVB-SEC]). When these methods
   are used, the security of ARP and ND can be comparable to that of
   a private LAN: A Receiver will only accept ARP or ND transmissions from
   the set of peer senders that share a common group encryption and
   common group authentication key provided by the L2 key management.

Add Informative Reference:

[ID-IPDVB-SEC] H.Cruickshank, S. Iyengar, L. Duquerroy, P. Pillai, "Security
requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE)
protocol", Work in Progress, draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-req-xx.txt.

> proposed standard RFC someday).
Would the requirements (INFO) be sufficient (this one is a milestone listed
on the Charter page)?

---

From: George Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:47:22 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Gorry,

your proposed change to the security considerations text (see below) would
do just fine....

hth,
	George

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:49:05 +0200

Hi all,

The draft is fine with me. My comments from -03 have been fixed.

Thanks

   Martin

Am 28.06.2006 um 14:25 schrieb Gorry Fairhurst:

> The period of this last call has been extended because it also  
> includes the week of the IETF meeting.
>
> corrections to this mailing list. The WGLC procedure is the last  
> chance for this working group to modify/correct this.
>