Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-mahesh-etsi-urn-03

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 20:02:27 -0500

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.

The summary of the review is Ready with Issues.

I am not that familiar with creating and maintaining URNs so please set 
me straight and move on if I'm off base here.

Section 2, "URN Specification for ETSI" contains the following:

"ETSI will manage resource classes using the "etsi" NID and will be the 
authority for managing resources and associated subsequent strings. ETSI 
will guarantee the uniqueness of the strings themselves, or it may 
permit secondary responsibility for certain defined resources."

But then says:

"ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing purposes 
only. Note that using experimental types may create collision as 
multiple users may use the same values for different resources and 
specific strings."

It looks like RFC 8141 gives guidance that experimental use of URN 
namespaces is to be done using RFC 6963 (URNs for "Examples".) RFC 8184 
does not address establishing or using namespaces under the subsequent 
strings for experimental use, but I could see that the registered owner 
of the namespace could make a designation for that purpose. That being 
said, I think that the two statements above are in conflict in the 
document and should be clarified.

Perhaps it would be better to reconstruct the second paragraph to say 
something like:

"ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing purposes 
only. Some experimentation may be controlled by ETSI within a subsequent 
string to ensure that there will be no namespace collisions among 
participants. Other experimentation may be controlled within a secondary 
namespace that may allow collisions, but this experimental use will be 
constrained. All other experimentation must follow the guidance set 
forth in RFC 6963."

Just as a nit, the Security Considerations section should be revised as 
it seems to be a bit unclear.
Current:

    There are no additional security considerations other than those
    described above, and are normally associated with the use and
    resolution of URNs in general, which are described in Function
    Requirements for URN [RFC1737 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1737>], Uniform Resource Names (URNs)
    [RFC8141 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8141>].

Suggested:
    There are no additional security considerations other than those
    described above, and_those_  normally associated with the use and
    resolution of URNs in general._These a__re generally_  described in Function_al_
    Requirements for_Uniform Resource Names_  [RFC1737 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1737>],_and_  Uniform Resource Names (URNs)
    [RFC8141 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8141>].

Best regards, Chris

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:37:50 -0700

Hi Chris,

> On Jul 23, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 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 am not that familiar with creating and maintaining URNs so please set me straight and move on if I'm off base here. 
> 
> "ETSI will manage resource classes using the "etsi" NID and will be the authority for managing resources and associated subsequent strings. ETSI will guarantee the uniqueness of the strings themselves, or it may permit secondary responsibility for certain defined resources." 
> 
> But then says:
> 
> "ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing purposes only. Note that using experimental types may create collision as multiple users may use the same values for different resources and specific strings."
> 
> It looks like RFC 8141 gives guidance that experimental use of URN namespaces is to be done using RFC 6963 (URNs for "Examples".) RFC 8184 does not address establishing or using namespaces under the subsequent strings for experimental use, but I could see that the registered owner of the namespace could make a designation for that purpose. That being said, I think that the two statements above are in conflict in the document and should be clarified.

Not necessarily.

RFC6963 says that there are three types of namespaces, formal, informal and experimental. What this draft is requesting for is the formal namespace. The RFC also says that experimental namespaces are by definition unregistered. That there is no issuing authority for experimental URNs. The owner of the NID therefore is not required to keep track of experimental namespaces. 

> 
> Perhaps it would be better to reconstruct the second paragraph to say something like:
> 
> "ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing purposes only. Some experimentation may be controlled by ETSI within a subsequent string to ensure that there will be no namespace collisions among participants. Other experimentation may be controlled within a secondary namespace that may allow collisions, but this experimental use will be constrained. All other experimentation must follow the guidance set forth in RFC 6963.”

How about this?

OLD:

ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing purposes only. Note that using experimental types may create collision as multiple users may use the same values for different resources and specific strings.

NEW:

ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing purposes only. Note that using experimental types may create collision as multiple users may use the same values for different resources and specific strings. All experimentation must follow the guidance set forth in RFC 6963.

> 
> Just as a nit, the Security Considerations section should be revised as it seems to be a bit unclear.
> Current:
>    described above, and those normally associated with the use and
>    resolution of URNs in general. These are generally described in Functional
>    Requirements for Uniform Resource Names [RFC1737 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1737>], and Uniform Resource Names (URNs)

Ok.

Thanks.

> Best regards, Chris

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:08:28 -0500

Hi Mahesh,

Thanks for setting me straight. The edits you propose look good to me.

Best regards,
Chris

On 7/24/18 4:37 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Chris Lonvick <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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 am not that familiar with creating and maintaining URNs so please 
>> set me straight and move on if I'm off base here.
>>
>> "ETSI will manage resource classes using the "etsi" NID and will be 
>> the authority for managing resources and associated subsequent 
>> strings. ETSI will guarantee the uniqueness of the strings 
>> themselves, or it may permit secondary responsibility for certain 
>> defined resources."
>>
>> But then says:
>>
>> "ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing 
>> purposes only. Note that using experimental types may create 
>> collision as multiple users may use the same values for different 
>> resources and specific strings."
>>
>> namespaces is to be done using RFC 6963 (URNs for "Examples".) RFC 
>> 8184 does not address establishing or using namespaces under the 
>> subsequent strings for experimental use, but I could see that the 
>> registered owner of the namespace could make a designation for that 
>> purpose. That being said, I think that the two statements above are 
>> in conflict in the document and should be clarified.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> RFC6963 says that there are three types of namespaces, formal, 
> informal and experimental. What this draft is requesting for is the 
> formal namespace. The RFC also says that experimental namespaces are 
> by definition unregistered. That there is no issuing authority for 
> experimental URNs. The owner of the NID therefore is not required to 
> keep track of experimental namespaces.
>
>>
>> "ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing 
>> purposes only. Some experimentation may be controlled by ETSI within 
>> a subsequent string to ensure that there will be no namespace 
>> collisions among participants. Other experimentation may be 
>> controlled within a secondary namespace that may allow collisions, 
>> but this experimental use will be constrained. All other 
>> experimentation must follow the guidance set forth in RFC 6963.”
>
> How about this?
>
> OLD:
>
> ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing 
> purposes only. Note that using experimental types may create collision 
> as multiple users may use the same values for different resources and 
> specific strings.
>
> NEW:
>
> ETSI may allow for use of experimental type values for testing 
> purposes only. Note that using experimental types may create collision 
> as multiple users may use the same values for different resources and 
> specific strings. All experimentation must follow the guidance set 
> forth in RFC 6963.
>
>>
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>