Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08
review-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08-secdir-lc-meadows-2015-07-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-06-09
Requested 2015-05-28
Draft last updated 2015-07-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Catherine Meadows
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08-secdir-lc-meadows-2015-07-02
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 13)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-07-02

Review
review-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-08-secdir-lc-meadows-2015-07-02

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 draft specifies the format and mechanisms used for encoding network identifiers in DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 by defining new access identifier options and sub-options.

The Security Considerations section gives a discussion of the security risks in using DHCP and their mitigation.  However, what needs to be go in the Security Considerations

Section is a discussion of the security risks raised by *this* document and possible mitigation.  The information about DHCP security risks is useful, but not of primary importance.

My impression is that this document gives formats for presenting fields whose use is already discussed in previous RFC’s, e.g. RFC3315, in which case there are no new

security considerations.  If that is so, then the Security Considerations Section should

include (preferably begin with) a statement to the effect that, since this document only gives instructions for formatting and encoding fields whose use has already been specified

in these previous RFC’s, it presents no additional security considerations beyond what is covered in those RFCs.  If that is not the case, you should say what new security risks are introduced

by *this* draft, e.g. does it enable a use of DHCP that was not possible before and could cause a new type of security risk if DHCP was used without authentication?

Recommendation:  Ready With Issues

Cathy Meadows




Catherine Meadows

Naval Research Laboratory

Code 5543

4555 Overlook Ave., S.W.

Washington DC, 20375

phone: 202-767-3490

fax: 202-404-7942

email: 

catherine.meadows at nrl.navy.mil