Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-

Request Review of draft-ietf-enum-3761bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2009-06-09
Requested 2009-08-18
Authors Lawrence W. Conroy , Scott O. Bradner , Kazunori Fujiwara
I-D last updated 2009-10-22
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Julien Laganier
Assignment Reviewer Julien Laganier
State Completed
Review review-ietf-enum-3761bis-secdir-lc-laganier-2009-10-22
Completed 2009-10-22
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 document describes a Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
application relying on the DNS database for storage of E.164 numbers, and
resolution of those into URIs to be used to contact the recipients via various
services (e.g., SIP, H323).

I have found the description of the DDDS application well written and easily
understandable. The security considerations section seemed fair and reasonable
in pointing out the insecure character of DNS used alone, referencing DNSSEC as
a mechanism countering the threats specific to DNS, and recommending services
to authenticate peers as part of the setup process for the service itself
rather than blindly trust the addressing mechanisms in use.

I have one minor suggestion on rewording this sentence:

   Because of these threats, a deployed ENUM service SHOULD include
   mechanisms to ameliorate these threats.

Don't you want to say "counter" rather than "ameliorate" (or maybe "ameliorate
the security of the service under these threats") ?