Subject: [Gen-art] GEN-Art review of draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-07

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:28:31 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve
these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-07
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review Date: 2009-10-06
IETF LC End Date: 2009-10-16
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
in the review

Major #1 It's not clear to me whether both relay identifier types MUST
be supported or whether implementations are free to pick which one(s)
they support?  If you add one of the following (or something similar) in
Section 5 then my concern is addressed:

Implementations MUST support both RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID and
RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII.

Implementations MUST support RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID and [SHOULD or MAY]
support RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII.

Implementations MUST support RELAY_IDENTIFIER_ASCII and [SHOULD or MAY]
support RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID.

Major #2  In the security considerations it says look to RFC 3046 and
RFC 4030 for security considerations and then says SHOULD use the relay
agent authentication option from RFC 4030.  RFC 3046 is targeted at
network infrastructures that are "trusted and secure" and RFC 4030
allows the relay agent to be part of this trusted and secure network.
If an implementation doesn't use the relay agent authentication option,
then the relay agent can't be part of the "trusted and secure" network.
  This makes me think that the relay agent authentication option from
RFC 4030 ought to be a MUST not a SHOULD?

spt

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:28:42 -0700

> support RELAY_IDENTIFIER_DUID.

Yeah, this seems like an interoperability problem just waiting to  
happen.   Personally I would like to see this go away and the draft  
_only_ use a DUID.   If the DUID types defined in 3115 aren't  
adequate, add a new type that does what you want for this application  
(and, please, is restricted to this application).

> RFC 4030 ought to be a MUST not a SHOULD?

Yes, this text is confusing.   This document makes no changes to  
practice that require more or less security than is provided by  
existing relay agent options in RFC4036.   Thus, the security  
considerations in RFC3046 should be adequate.

If the security considerations from RFC3046 are not adequate, the  
document needs a section prior to the security considerations section  
that explains the use of RFC4030 in the context of this document - in  
what circumstances it is required, and in what circumstances it is not.