Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-04
review-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-04-secdir-lc-takahashi-2019-02-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-02-17
Requested 2019-02-03
Authors Love Astrand , Larry Zhu , Margaret Cullen , Margaret Cullen , Greg Hudson
I-D last updated 2019-02-17
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takeshi Takahashi
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-02-17
review-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-04-secdir-lc-takahashi-2019-02-17-00
I do not see any serious issues on this draft and enjoyed reading it.
I have only minor questions for the purpose of deepening my understanding of
the draft.

1. In section 5, regarding the The TD-CERT-DIGEST-ALGORITHMS-Data message, who
embed the rejectedAlgorithm field? If it will be the KDC, why does the KDC need
to fill and distribute this information to the others?

2. In section 8 (security consideration), it is stated that "to do otherwise
allows an active attacker to perform a downgrade attack". In my understanding
of the draft, arbitrary algorithm could be used (if the negotiation reaches
agreements). I wonder if there is any mechanism that discourages the
negotiation of using insecure algorithms.  For instance, the list of algorithms
that must be treated with care could be listed somewhere?

Thank you, and kind regards,
Take