Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-core-problem-details-05
review-ietf-core-problem-details-05-secdir-telechat-nir-2022-06-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-problem-details
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-06-14
Requested 2022-06-09
Authors Thomas Fossati , Carsten Bormann
I-D last updated 2022-06-14
Completed reviews I18ndir Last Call review of -05 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -05 by Harald T. Alvestrand (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoav Nir
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-core-problem-details by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/O2jATwRhuR-69Q4G-Oc6Fcfe8vQ
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 08)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-06-14
review-ietf-core-problem-details-05-secdir-telechat-nir-2022-06-14-00
Greetings

The document defines a CBOR-encoded problem details structure, similar to the
JSON- or XML-encoded structure defined in RFC 7807. As such, the security
considerations for it mostly mirror those of RFC 7807, and that is all that the
Security Considerations section says.  Following this reference, the Security
Considerations section of 7807 urges caution when defining new problem types
for fear of leaking sensitive information in the relevant fields of new types.

There is, however, a difference between 7807 and this document. In 7807
different problems are identified by "type". In this document, there is no
explicit type. Instead, there are basic details that are defined, plus a
registry of standard and custom extra attributes that can be defined. The
security considerations section in 7807 is phrased in terms of new types.
Security considerations text written specifically for this documentation would
not mention new types (which don't exist), but new detail entries.

Still, the message would be the same. When defining new detail entries, care
should be taken that they do not leak sensitive information.  Yet because of
the difference, I believe that the text should be written specifically for this
document, not just referenced from 7807.