Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-turner-deviceowner-attribute

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:34:10 -0400

--On Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:17:46 AM -0400 Alan DeKok 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>   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. Feel free to forward to
> any appropriate forum.
>
>   This document defines a device owner attribute for use in ASN.1
> protocols.  As it leverages existing ASN.1 specifications, it introduces
> no new security considerations.

This makes no sense to me.  ASN.1 is a syntax notation, not a protocol. 
The abstract is entirely unclear on what protocol this document extends, 
though the introduction seems to suggest it extends PKIX and does not 
extend LDAP.  It's not clear to me that it has any bearing on other 
ASN.1-using protocols, such as SNMP or Kerberos.

-- Jeff

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:45:09 -0400

> This makes no sense to me.  ASN.1 is a syntax notation, not a protocol.

  It affects "ASN.1 based protocols".

> ASN.1-using protocols, such as SNMP or Kerberos.

  The document covers security implications of its suggested use in
PKIX.  For other uses, the attribute would appear to be informational,
and not introduce any new security issues.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:55:37 -0400

> ASN.1-using protocols, such as SNMP or Kerberos.

Somebody else recently commented that there really aren't ASN.1
attributes.  They suggested changing it to X.500 attributes because 
that's where the definition came from (I guess technically the attribute 
definition is from X.501).  I agree with the suggested change and will 
make it in the next revision.

spt