Hi, Stephen, Sorry for the late reply. We was in Chinese National Holiday. Please see my reply below.
Best regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hanna [mailto:sha...@juniper.net] > Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:56 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; sec...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-04.txt > > 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. > > This document discusses several ways that DHCPv6 can be used > with Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA), pointing > out benefits and concerns. While the document does discuss > security issues in several places, it often lapses into vague > terminology like "one should carefully consider the impact on > security". Given that the primary benefit of using CGAs is to > improve security by providing address validation without > complex key distribution, carefully analyzing security issues > seems necessary for this document. > > On the other hand, the Document Shepherd Write-up for this > document says "The WG was not very energetic on this > document. The document describes possible applications of > CGAs and DHCP interaction and when the WG was asked whether > there was enough interest to work on solutions, the reply was > silence. As such, the consensus is based on most of the WG > being indifferent." So maybe this document is only intended > as a sketch of possible issues that can be explored later in > a more in-depth document if someone is interested in doing > so. If that's the case, maybe it's OK to not fully analyze > all the security implications. However, in that case, I think > the Security Considerations section should state clearly that > this document does not contain a complete security analysis > and any further work in this area should include such an > analysis. Nobody should implement the techniques described in > this document without conducting that more thorough analysis. I guess that's the case. I am fine to add the statement you suggested into the security considerations. > I noticed a few typos. On page 6, the word "certificated" > should be "certified". Three sentences later, "depend on > policies" should be "depending on policies". And the draft > names in the Change Log say "dhacpv6" instead of "dhcpv6". Thanks. We will fix it with other comments in the future version. Regards, Sheng > Thanks, > > Steve > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
