Subject: Re: [DNA] RE: draft-ietf-dna-link-information-03

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:37:56 +0300

Alper Yegin wrote:

>Jari, all:
>
>Please see below for the revised text for the security considerations
>section.
>
>Especially the last paragraph. I personally find it useful. But if you
>believe it is not useful, or harmful, etc., I don't mind deleting it.  
>
>Suggest deletion/modification/etc as you see appropriate.
>
It does make a MUST requirement without specifying in detail what needs
to be done to satisfy it (e.g. specific mechanisms).

I do not personally worry too much about it, but it may raise a few eyebrows
in the rest of the IESG. And I don't see a lot of use for the statement
in any
case, so my recommendation would be to just delete it. I'm not forcing you
to do that as a part of my AD review, however.

--Jari

>
>4.  Security Considerations
>
>Attackers may spoof various indications at the link-layer, or
>manipulate the physical medium directly in an effort to confuse the
>host about the state of the link-layer. For instance, attackers may
>spoof error messages or disturb the wireless medium to cause the host
>to move its connection elsewhere or to even disconnect. Attackers may
>also spoof information to make the host believe it has a connection
>when, in reality, it does not.
>
>These attacks may cause use of non-preferred networks or even
>denial-of-service.
>
>This specification does not provide any protection of its own for the
>the indications from the lower layers. But the vulnerabilities
>can be mitigated through the use of techniques in other
>parts of the protocol stack. In particular, it is RECOMMENDED
>that authentication, replay and integrity protection of link-layer
>management messages is enabled when available. Additionally, protocol stack
>may also use some upper layer mechanisms to achieve partial protection
>against situations where incorrect event notifications are generated (e.g.,
>upper-layer confirmation of the link-layer event).
>
>When the link-layer and the network-layer reside on separate nodes as in a
>distributed stack implementation, the event notifications MUST be
>authenticated, replay and integrity protected as they are delivered. The
>specific mechanisms to achieve the security of notifications are outside the
>scope of this document.
>  
>

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:33:27 -0700

Jari,

OK, I'll follow your recommendation unless someone else has any issues with
it.

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 3:38 AM
> To: Alper Yegin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [DNA] RE: draft-ietf-dna-link-information-03
> 
> Alper Yegin wrote:
> 
> >Jari, all:
> >