Re: Last Call: 'A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the the Internet Registry Information Service' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-crisp-iris-lwz)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sam Hartman wrote:
I notice that this transport provides no authentication of the data
that is retrieved.

The security considerations needs to discuss the potential attacks if
an attacker modifies this public data.  The security considerations
section also needs to point to best practice for avoiding UDP
reflection attacks.  It is not good enough to say "Do what other
people do."


In both cases these may be included by reference.

I noticed this in the draft:

"   1.  If a request requires authentication, confidentiality, or other
       security, use another transfer protocol."

It seems to me that the intent is to not provide authentication here. This seems more fundamental than a fix by reference.

In a different vein, we have:

"  Its message exchange
  pattern is simple: a client sends a request in one UDP packet, and a
  server responds with an answer in one UDP packet."

I see no mention of what to do if the one UDP packet is lost. Resend? After how long? Exponentially backoff?
- Mark



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]