Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - April 13th, 2006

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:46:47 -0500

Hi all,

Here's the latest round of LC assignments: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

There are alot of everyone's favorites this time - MIBs and security
docs and even a security policy MIB. 

Thanks, 
Mary. 

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Joel Halpern

- 'DDP/RDMAP Security '
   <draft-ietf-rddp-security-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard
- 'Applicability of Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and
Direct Data 
   Placement (DDP) '
   <draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-05.txt> as an Informational RFC

IETF LC ends on 2006-04-19.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rddp-security-08.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-05.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: John Loughney

- 'IPsec Security Policy Database Configuration MIB '
   <draft-ietf-ipsp-spd-mib-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-04-20.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsp-spd-mib-05.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Ron Bonica

- 'Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI '
   <draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on by 2006-04-22.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-09.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Scott Brim

- 'MIB for Fibre-Channel's Fabric Shortest Path First Protocol '
   <draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on by 2006-04-24.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-02.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins

- 'Fibre-Channel Routing Information MIB '
   <draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on by 2006-04-24.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-03.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo

- 'IKE and IKEv2 Authentication Using ECDSA'
   <draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-auth-ecdsa-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-05-03.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-auth-ecdsa-05.t
xt

Also, this IPR disclosure may be of inerest
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=695

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Michael Patton

- 'RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals '
   <draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard
- 'Definition of Events For Modem, FAX, and Text Telephony Signals '
   <draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on by 2006-05-04.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-12.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-06.txt

--------------------------- 

Reviewer: Sharon Chisholm

- 'Example media types for use in documentation '
   <draft-taylor-types-example-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on by 2006-05-09.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-taylor-types-example-02.txt

--------------------------- 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:10:26 -0400

I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

(These reviews treat DDP and RDMAP as given, and do not comment 
directly on those protocols.)

RDDP/ RDMAP Security
    Given the nature of RDDP, this document is a very good idea.  I 
am glad to see it.
    This review does not check the completeness of the security 
coverage.  However, as a lay reader I am quite impressed.

    The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC, 
and probably ready as a Proposed Standard.
    Personally, I would put the one IPSec requirement into the main 
document, and consider the rest of the material to be in the category 
of good advice.  This is driven by the fact that the actual advice is 
somewhere between difficult and impossible to observe on the wire.

    minor point:  The last sentence of the introduction reads:

    If all recommended mitigations are in place the implemented usage
    models, the RDMAP/DDP protocol can be shown to not expose any new
    security vulnerabilities.

   Aside from the linguistic oddity of this sentence, it is unclear 
what state is being compared.  I.e., compared with what condition is 
there an absence of new security vulnerabilities.   (Presumably some 
state other than "not communicating".)  There are scattered other odd 
English usages.
    minor: In section 2.3.2, in describing three mechanisms, the text 
refers to one mechanism (X) and one mechanism (Y and Z).  It should 
refer to two mechanisms (Y and Z).

     IDNits reports some references missing and some unused.

RDMA/DDP Applicability:
Other than needing a good English language editor, this document 
appears ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
An example of this is that the references ought to actually be 
referenced in the body of the document.

---

From: "Jim Pinkerton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:31:39 -0700

Thanks for the feedback Joel. Comments in-line.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:10 PM
> To: Mary Barnes; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [rddp] Re: [Gen-art] IETF LC reviews: rddp security
> andapplicability
> 
[<jim>] 

Good point. Below is the suggested rewording to address your concerns,
plus after rereading the section, it doesn't summarize the appendices
(it does summarize all the other sections), so I add some informative
text describing them just before this text.

The appendices provide focused summaries of this specification. Section
11 Appendix A: ULP Issues for RDDP Client/Server Protocols focuses on
implementers of traditional client/server protocols. Section 12 Appendix
B: Summary of RNIC and ULP Implementation Requirements summarizes all
normative requirements in this specification. Section 13 Appendix C:
Partial Trust Taxonomy provides an abstract model for categorizing trust
boundaries.

If an RDMAP/DDP protocol implementation uses the mitigations recommended
in this document, that implementation should not exhibit additional
security vulnerabilities above and beyond those of an implementation of
the transport protocol (i.e., TCP or SCTP) and protocols beneath it
(e.g., IP) without RDMAP/DDP.

> refer to two mechanisms (Y and Z).
[<jim>] 
Thanks. Fixed.

>      IDNits reports some references missing and some unused.
[<jim>] 
Thanks. Reran and fixed the issues.

Jim

> rddp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:18:41 -0400

Thank you.  The changes you propose would address the minor issues.
Yours,
Joel