Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-
review-ietf-mext-binary-ts-secdir-lc-salowey-2010-03-15-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2010-03-09 | |
Requested | 2010-03-03 | |
Authors | Gerardo Giaretta , Nicolas Montavont , George Tsirtsis , Hesham Soliman | |
I-D last updated | 2010-03-15 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Joseph A. Salowey
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joseph A. Salowey |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Completed | 2010-03-15 |
review-ietf-mext-binary-ts-secdir-lc-salowey-2010-03-15-00
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. I didn't find any security issues in the draft. The security considerations section points to draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-05. The referenced section is a bit thin and doesn't really say what bad things could happen if the binding is falsified. If unprotected bindings are not an option, this may be OK. If they are an option it would be good to have a better understanding of what the risks are with the various levels of protection. If this is done it might be possible that there are specific considerations around some of the data types defined in the draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-04, but I don't think that would be the case. Joe