Skip to main content

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
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16-secdir-lc-nir-2019-06-29
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"