I agree that such a section on key management claims makes sense, but
that should go in security considerations. I have some of the
reservations that Sam has, but this is a necessary evil, IMO.
Lakshminath
At 03:08 PM 11/7/2006, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
<snip>
Adding such a statement would at least make it clear to a reviewer that it
was the intent of the author to comply with the guidelines. However, I
think that having a section on key management claims would make it easier
for a reviewer to examine a document and find the material relating
to the guidelines.
For example, EAP method documents are required to include a security
claims section that is typically short since it typically just references
material already in the document or in external references. Similarly a
Key Management Claims section might make it easier for a reviewer. Such a
section might look like this:
"4.1. Key Management Claims
AAA Key Management requirements are defined in [RFCXXXX]. This
document claims to meet the following requirements, as described
below:
Cryptographic Algorithm Independence: Yes (See Sections 2.1, 2.3)
Strong, fresh session keys: Yes (See Section 3.1, 3.4)
Key scope: Yes (See Section 4.5)
Replay protection: Yes (See Section 5.1)
Authentication: Yes (See Section 2.6)
Authorization: Yes (See Section 2.7)
Key confidentiality: Yes (See Section 2.8)
Confirmed ciphersuite selection: Partial (See Section 2.9)
Key naming: Yes (See Section 6.1)
Domino Effect: Yes (See Section 8.1)
Key context binding: Yes (See Section 7.2)
Confidentiality of Identity: No
Authorization Restriction: Partial (See Section 6.2)"
> > While this document includes a lot of useful requirements, it does not
> > provide guidance on how document authors should demonstrate adherence to
> > the principles that are described. For example, a AAA key management
> > document may not include a section describing the assumptions and
> > requirements of the design, which can make it difficult for a reviewer
> > to determine whether or not the protocol fulfills its goals. The
> > document describes a number of useful security properties, but there is
> > no request that document authors include sections in their
> > documents that correspond to these requirements.
> > As a result, my concern is that reviewers could be left with a large task
> > to determine whether a given document did or did not fulfill the
> > requirements described in this document.
> >
> > In order to make life easier for reviewers, it might be helpful for the
> > document to provide explicit guidance for draft authors.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf