Subject: [Anima] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-28: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:01:56 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-28: 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-anima-autonomic-control-plane/

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

I found significant parts of this document tough to follow, particularly
because there are many deployment variations for almost every element of the
architecture. But I trust that the Security ADs will catch any remaining
security issues.

I appreciate that this effort appears, refreshingly, to have security baked in
from the start.

Sec 6.1.1
"it is beneficial to
   copy the device identifying fields of the node's IDevID certificate
   into the ACP certificate,... and
   the "serialNumber" contains usually device type information that may
   help to faster determine working exploits/attacks against the device."

I am not certain the 'beneficial' assertion is supportable, if the benefit is
some diagnostic help but the drawback is a security vulnerability.

sec 6.5. If both nodes have empty ACP address fields, they are both Bob. What
happens then?

sec 6.11.1.14. "As this requirement raises additional Data-Plane,..."
I am not sure what this clause means to say.