Early Review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-02
review-ietf-pcp-description-option-02-secdir-early-hallam-baker-2013-11-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2014-02-18
Requested 2013-11-14
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Phillip Hallam-Baker
Review review-ietf-pcp-description-option-02-secdir-early-hallam-baker-2013-11-21
Posted at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04383.html
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2013-11-21
Review completed: 2013-11-21

Review
review-ietf-pcp-description-option-02-secdir-early-hallam-baker-2013-11-21

  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.

The document adds a 'description' option to the PCP protocol. The description does not have defined semantics in PCP. As such the Security Considerations relies on the considerations in the PCP specification.




This seems ill advised to me. Even though the field has no semantics in PCP it is essentially the equivalent of a TXT RR in the DNS, possibly the most over-used and abused RR in the DNS protocol.




If the description option is added then people are going to start using it to define site local semantics unless there is some other mechanism for that purpose. I suggest that the draft authors either add a description of how to use the PCP mechanisms for this purpose (if applicable) or describe a mechanism to support this use and preferably providing some sort of protection against collisions.




Such a mechanism needs to consider the authenticity of the data provided and the risk that it might disclose data to another application.




-- 

Website: 

http://hallambaker.com/