Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07
review-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07-secdir-lc-tsou-2013-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-09-27
Requested 2013-09-19
Authors Henning Schulzrinne, Stephen McCann, Gabor Bajko, Hannes Tschofenig, Dirk Kroeselberg
Draft last updated 2013-10-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tina Tsou
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07-secdir-lc-tsou-2013-10-03
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2013-10-03

Review
review-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07-secdir-lc-tsou-2013-10-03






Dear all,




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.




 




Draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-07 provides extensions to the emergency services architecture described in other documents to allow emergency services calling to proceed even when the caller is unauthenticated and unauthorized.
 The draft is particularly relevant to mobile devices, where such a situation is most likely to arise. It assumes separate entities provide network access and process calls at the application level, and based on that, deals with three cases, not necessarily
 mutually exclusive:




   -- no access authentication;




   -- no application service provider reachable;




   -- subscribed application service provider reachable but ordinary




      service denied because of zero credit balance or other reasons.




Full understanding of this document required review of RFC 5069 (security requirements specifically for emergency call marking and mapping), RFC 6443, the emergency calling framework, and RFC 6881, a BCP specifying requirements for various
 components of the emergency calling system beginning with the subscriber device.




 




The draft states that it is forward-looking, and is input for other SDOs. One example of this is the reliance on DHCP provisioning, which is at this point little-implemented in cellular devices.




 




General remark: the document is very heavy on abbreviations, which makes serious demands on the novice reader at some points. The terminology and abbreviations are introduced quite properly at the beginning of the document, but the authors
 might still ease the reader's task by spelling out at least the less-used abbreviations either whenever used (if only two or three times) or perhaps once per section.




 




General assessment: The document is basically ready, but lacks a statement of the specific points in RFCs 6443 and 6881 that need to be changed due to lack of authentication or authorization. As a result, the NASP and NAA sections are unmotivated.




 




Editorial: Section 7 in a few places does not quite seem to say what I think it means, hence the following suggestions:




 




Suggestion, sec. 7, fourth para, first sentence:




Currently: "We only illustrate a possible model."




Suggested: "We illustrate just one possible model for obtaining the destination addresses to which emergency callers should be restricted in the NAA case."




 




In the next sentence, missing some words: "... as well




    as the address of the LoST server itself."




       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




 




Suggestion, sec. 7, fifth para, first sentence:




Currently: "For the ZBP case the additional aspect of fraud has to be considered."




Suggested: "The additional aspect of fraud also has to be considered for the ZBP case."




 




 




Typos:




 




Typo, sec. 5, first bullet: devices -> device




 




Typo, sec. 7, second para, last sentence: lead -> led




 




Typo, sec. 7, third para, fourth line: fraudulent -> fraudulently




 




Thank you,




Tina