Last Call Review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16
review-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16-secdir-lc-nir-2019-06-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 20) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2019-07-08 | |
Requested | 2019-06-24 | |
Authors | Roger Carney , Gavin Brown , Jothan Frakes | |
I-D last updated | 2019-06-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -16
by Stewart Bryant
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Yoav Nir (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -18 by Yoav Nir (diff) Genart Telechat review of -18 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Yoav Nir |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/7-a6ajKwahc0xpZbmWOoPpi_sDw | |
Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 20) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2019-06-29 |
review-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16-secdir-lc-nir-2019-06-29-00
Hi 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 entire text of the Security Considerations section is as follows: The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730], the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731], and protocol layers used by EPP. The security considerations described in these other specifications apply to this specification as well. This is what we like to call "security considerations by reference". I don't know what "security services" are in this context, but they are not the only thing that needs to be described in a Security Considerations section. In this case, the draft adds information about fees, customer credit and pay schedule. This falls under the category of financial information, which should be protected in transit by security mechanisms that protect confidentiality and integrity. It is also true that any transport mechanism that complies with RFC 5730 provides those functions. So what I'm missing here is a sentence that calls this out specifically. Something along the lines of "This extension adds financial information to the EPP protocol, so confidentiality and integrity protection must be provided by the transport mechanism. All transports compliant with RFC5730 provide that"