Subject: [Ecrit] [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost]

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:11:30 +0200

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost
Date: 	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:24:06 -0800 (PST)
From: 	Tim Polk <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked]
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

Discuss:
The introduction suggests that LoST may be appropriate for non-emergency services
as well, but does not revisit that notion anywhere else in the document.  As noted in Joe
Salowey's secdir review, there may be different threats or motivations which could affect
the applicability of LoST to such applications.  From his review:

   3) Use in non-ecrit cases - has much thought been given to the use of
   LoST in non-Ecrit cases?  There may be different threats or at least
   motivations than those covered in draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats.
   For example, in non-ecrit cases an attacker may seek monetary benefit
   through attacking the LoST protocol to return inaccurate service mapping
   information.  The suggestion here is to either consider this case of
   non-ecrit in more detail or to state that threats outside ecrit cases
   may be different. 

At a minimum, the security considedrations section should note that
non-emergency services may face a different set of threats.  The requirements
for these services should be carefully reviewed to ensure that LoST can be
used to achieve the service's security requirements.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit