Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4932bis-01

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

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.

I found security-related problems in my review of the document.

I did see, however, that the Security Considerations, which point back 
to ID 4930.bis, are very similar to the security considerations in RFC 
4930.  They hint that a secure transport is needed to thwart common mitm 
attacks but the section does not give any specific guidance.

It has been two years since RFC 4930 was published.  Have any secure 
transports been used?  If so, I think it would be a good idea to state 
which one(s) and how its attributes do thwart the threats.

Best regards,
Chris

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT)

> I found security-related problems in my review of the document.

That's supposed to be:
I found _no_ security-related problems in my review of the document.

Apologies for the confusion, and thanks Richard for pointing that out.

Regards,
Chris

>
> I did see, however, that the Security Considerations, which point back to ID 
> 4930.bis, are very similar to the security considerations in RFC 4930.  They 
> hint that a secure transport is needed to thwart common mitm attacks but the 
> section does not give any specific guidance.
>
> transports been used?  If so, I think it would be a good idea to state which 
> one(s) and how its attributes do thwart the threats.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:41:35 +0100

> I found security-related problems in my review of the document.

Chris,
Can you be more specific?

> 4930.  They hint that a secure transport is needed to thwart common 
> mitm attacks but the section does not give any specific guidance.

> which one(s) and how its attributes do thwart the threats.

See draft-hollenbeck-rfc4934bis-01.txt