Subject: [Anima] Initial review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01

From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:47:11 +0000

As the Security Advisor for Anima, I have reviewed draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01

and have the following comments:

Editorial nits:

Section 4.6 : ACP's full description should be called out as its the first instance of its use in this draft.

Section 7.1: "general concepts, such as sitting on top of the ANI, etc." seems to be a dangling sentence (at least ill formed).

Section 7.2 typo in several references: "Enrolment" -> Enrollment

Comments:

Section 6:

  - Self-protecting against what attacks?  All possible attacks (hard to predict)  or is it "known" attacks as described where?

  - All protocols are secure by default implies that all protocols a configured by default to be encrypted to provide both confidentiality and integrity?

Section 6.2:  is a device = autonomic node?

Section 6.3: the MASA is the implied CA as well?

Section 7.2 (as a whole): seems to be incomplete....are constrained vs. unconstrained nodes explained elsewhere?  This description seems to imply its definition being in this section, but perhaps more text is missing?

Section 10:

 - The security considerations should discuss the potential for malware, e.g. a node that has either been misconfigured or infected.

 - Should there be privacy considerations as potential topology and identities be disclosed especially during discovery and bootstrap?

   Nancy