Mercurial > hg > ietf
annotate ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt @ 5:b281db304428
added disclaimer about section 4
author | Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> |
---|---|
date | Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:28:37 +0100 |
parents | a88cd2ff0a89 |
children | ac8f4ba48e08 |
rev | line source |
---|---|
1 | 1 Document: |
2 Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard | |
3 Review type: artart - Last Call review | |
4 Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson | |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
5 Review Date: 2023-10-@@ |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
6 Result: Ready with Issues |
1 | 7 |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
8 *Summary* |
1 | 9 |
10 Caveat: I'm not familiar with the group comms family of RFCs or the | |
11 applications they support, so this review is from an outsider's | |
12 perspective. | |
13 | |
5
b281db304428
added disclaimer about section 4
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
4
diff
changeset
|
14 As such, I am not able to comment on the adequacy of section 4. This |
b281db304428
added disclaimer about section 4
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
4
diff
changeset
|
15 is where the details of the Client and ??? interactions are spelled |
b281db304428
added disclaimer about section 4
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
4
diff
changeset
|
16 out, and it needs a potential user of this spec. to judge whether they |
b281db304428
added disclaimer about section 4
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
4
diff
changeset
|
17 provide the necessary functionality. |
b281db304428
added disclaimer about section 4
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
4
diff
changeset
|
18 |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
19 *Substantive points* |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
20 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
21 Section 2. I'm seeing an inconsistency in the way the Dispatcher is |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
22 discussed. When introduced in the bullet points the last bullet says |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
23 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
24 "If it consists of an explicit entity such as a pub-sub Broker or a |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
25 message relayer, the Dispatcher is comparable to an _untrusted_ |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
26 on-path intermediary, and as such it is _able to read_ the messages |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
27 sent by Clients in the group." [emphasis added] |
1 | 28 |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
29 But at the end of section 2 we find |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
30 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
31 "5. The joining node can communicate _securely_ with the other group |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
32 members, using the keying material provided in step 3." |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
33 [emphasis added] |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
34 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
35 If the Dispatcher is untrusted, how can communication be secure? |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
36 There is no discussion of the Dispatcher in the Security section. |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
37 |
4 | 38 Section 5: I don't see how authority to institute forced deletion is |
39 established. Indeed the means for forced deletion don't appear to be | |
40 defined at all. Section 4.8 (and 4.8.3) explicitly requires that only | |
41 the Client can send a Delete request, and only for themselves. | |
42 | |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
43 *Minor points* |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
44 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
45 Section 1. I note that one of the two referenced examples of candidate |
1 | 46 application profiles, "A publish-subscribe architecture for the |
47 Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)" [1], has expired. I'm not | |
48 sure how much it matters to have reasonably mature examples, but | |
49 without _some_ good reasons to suppose that there's a community out | |
50 there waiting to implement this framework, its future does seem a bit | |
51 shaky... There is of course a chicken-and-egg problem here which may | |
52 explain the lack of progress. | |
53 | |
54 Section 2. This is the first point where the actual connection between | |
55 ACE and this document is made clear, that is, that the KDC is the | |
56 Resource Server _per ACE_. Simply adding ", per ACE," to "Resource | |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
57 Server" in para 2 of Section 1 would fix this for me. |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
58 |
4 | 59 Section 6: It might be helpful to include ASCII-art diagrams of the |
60 different communication pathways described for accomplishing rekeying. | |
61 | |
62 Sections 3.1 & 7: The example scopes include Verifier and Monitor | |
63 roles. Although there is a parenthetical reference to the [Vv]erifier | |
64 role in Section 3.3.1, no other mention of Monitor is given, and in | |
65 general the role of roles is not explained anywhere. There is a | |
66 "Request inconsistent with the current roles" error code defined in | |
67 section 9, but no tabulation of roles allowed/required for particular | |
68 requests, which one might expect. | |
69 | |
70 If all this is something defined in one of the many referenced specs, | |
71 and so familiar to likely readers, that's OK, otherwise perhaps | |
72 something should be added. | |
73 | |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
74 *Nits* |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
75 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
76 Section 1 / Appendix A: The use of REQ[n] and OPT[n] in conjunction |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
77 with REQUIRED and MAY is not explained, nor are they linked to the |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
78 relevant text in Appendix A. There is an oblique reference to this |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
79 practice in para. 4 of Section 1, which could stand to be expanded to |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
80 explain your conventions. |
1 | 81 |
3
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
82 Passim: Please do a thorough spell-check. The following were found in the |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
83 first 4 sections: |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
84 recommeded -> recommended |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
85 memebrs -> members |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
86 specificaton -> specification |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
87 acces -> access |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
88 trasferring -> transferring |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
89 |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
90 ht |
11c0afd7bad2
trying to get into Section 3
Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
parents:
1
diff
changeset
|
91 -- |
1 | 92 |
93 [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-12 |