Subject: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-usecases-03 WGLC review

From: Samuel Erdtman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:26:36 +0200

Hi,

Thanks for writing a great document, first time I´m sending in review
comments so I hope I´m doing it the right way.

= Abstract and Introduction
Theses sections are mentioning a connections to CoAP for this document but
there is very limited actual connections to CoAP that I can see when
reading is it really needed to mention CoAP since it also says that most
concepts are general.

= Missing use case?
I see nothing about secure firmware update, could maybe be seen as pushing
configuration but it would nice to have it spelled out somewhere.

= General comment
Are the Authorization Problems Summary sections cumulative i.e. if a
problem has come up in a previous section it will not be mentioned again or
are the sections autonomous?
If sections are autonomous I thing at least
* 2.3.  Personal Health Monitoring
Also needs integrity protected data, possible confidentiality too.

= General comment about Authorization Problems Summary sections
Big variation in explanation of why it is a requirement
For example
“U1.3 The container owner requires the integrity of the sensor data that is
used for climate control.”
Here it is explained, but not here
“U1.7 The fruit vendor requires the integrity of the data that is used to
locate the goods”
It just describes the type of data that needs to be integrity protected and
nothing about what. We could guess but in U1.3 we did not have to.

It would be super nice if the use case text connected to the authorisation
problems e.g.
“Additionally, the sensor values are used to control the climate within the
cargo containers.”
could add a reference so that it looks like this
“Additionally, the sensor values are used to control the climate within the
cargo containers (U1.3).”

What is the differens between
“U1.4 The fruit vendor requires the confidentiality of the sensor data that
pertains the state of the goods.”
and
“U1.6 The fruit vendor requires the confidentiality of the data that is
used to locate the goods.”

Is there really a benefit of splitting U1.6 and U1.7

2.2.  Home Automation
There is nothing about transferring ownership of the permeant parts of the
automated home like air conditioning when selling the home. Further it
might be important not to get historical data or it might be important to
get historical data. e.g. for the heating system it might be good to know
exactly  how the home behaves during cold periods however it might not be
interesting to know what groseries that has been in the refrigerator.

2.5.3.  Advanced Metering Infrastructure
Can also feature remote power off, from what I know (I wrote a bit on
security for smart meters after seeing a hack at Blackhat Europe last
https://www.nexusgroup.com/en/blog/smart-meter-security-and-pki/)

2.6.1.  Dynamically Connecting Smart Sports Equipment
Maybe the device, could report fitness data to Jody´s fitness account while
borrowed. would require Jody to authorise the device to access here account
for an hour.

Best Regards
//Samuel Erdtman

---

From: "Moore, Steve" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:55:14 +0000

I apologize for chiming in so late on the WGLC, but I also don't think I have any comments that are show stoppers so to speak.

Most of my comments were echoed by Samual, so I'll just steal parts of his email here and add on in line.

________________________________
> From: Ace <[email-masked]> on behalf of Samuel Erdtman <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 12:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-usecases-03 WGLC review
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for writing a great document, first time I´m sending in review comments so I hope I´m doing it the right way.

Same here! I liked the document and the scope of use cases it contained.

>= Missing use case?
>I see nothing about secure firmware update, could maybe be seen as pushing configuration but it would nice to have it spelled out somewhere.

I agree that this is important, but I'm not really sure that the Authentication and Authorization part applies to it. (Although you could make the case that the firmware is another resource on the device maybe?)

> 2.2.  Home Automation
> There is nothing about transferring ownership of the permeant parts of the automated home like air conditioning when selling the home. Further it might be important not to get > historical data or it might be important to get historical data. e.g. for the heating system it might be good to know exactly  how the home behaves during cold periods however it might > not be interesting to know what groseries that has been in the refrigerator.

This thought also crossed my mind it is touched upon with the re-provisioning that is mentioned in U4.2 under the building automation. Handing over the permanent parts of the house would probably be part of the authorization/authentication server for the house, but the historical data might be more of a feature of the home gateway/aggregation service (Or a cloud based home management system).

?Other than those small thoughts, I think the document looks good to go!
-steve