Subject: [dhcwg] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:14:06 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have 2 questions that I would like to chat about and should be easy
enough to resolve.

1. I know we've discussed in the past why there is no MUST for TLS and it
having to do with DHCPv6 use on private networks or isolated.  Is there
text in one of the more recent RFCs that covers this explanation that can
be cited?  I'd like to make sure that's enough too.

2. The Security Considerations section says not to use Authentication
from RFC3316.  SHould authentication instead be done within TLS or how
will the session be authenticated.  Did I miss something?  I'm not
finding the term authentication elsewhere in the draft and can infer
things, but wanted to make sure since nothing is stated explicitly.

---

From: kkinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:46:15 -0500

Kathleen,

Thanks for your comments.  My responses are indented below.

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

	To the best of my knowledge the justifications for both a secure
	and an insecure mode have been kept out of the RFC's themselves,
	and are scattered over a variety of issues raised for different
	drafts.  A pretty succinct summary came from you for the DHCPv4
	Active Leasequery draft (the bottom of this page):

	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7724/ballot/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7724/ballot/>

	I can go back to the email surrounding the DHCPv6 Active Leasequery
	draft and try to pull that together into something longer, but
	essentially it is going to say pretty much what you have summarized
	at the above URL.
> things, but wanted to make sure since nothing is stated explicitly.

	Interesting point.  Yes, if you care about authentication you
	should use TLS.  And the discussion on authentication in TLS
	is in Section 9.1 of the DHCPv6 Active Leasequery draft, RFC
	7653.  That section is not otherwise referenced here in the
	failover draft.  I will add the following to the end of the
	Security Considerations section, immediately after:

>>    Authentication for DHCPv6 messages [RFC3315 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315>] MUST NOT be used to
>>    attempt to secure transmission of the messages described in this
>>    document.

	"If authentication is desired, TLS SHOULD be employed
	as described in Sections 8.2 and 9.1 of [RFC7653] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7653#section-8.2>."

	Thanks for catching this!

	Regards -- Kim