Thanks, Yoav. I had warned the working group of that very issue, and I’m sure they plan to address it as part of the last call comments. Thanks for raising the issue here as well.
Barry
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 11:26 AM Yoav Nir via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Yoav Nir
Review result: Has Nits
Hi
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.
The entire text of the Security Considerations section is as follows:
The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730], the EPP
domain name mapping [RFC5731], and protocol layers used by EPP.. The
security considerations described in these other specifications apply
to this specification as well.
This is what we like to call "security considerations by reference". I don't
know what "security services" are in this context, but they are not the only
thing that needs to be described in a Security Considerations section.
In this case, the draft adds information about fees, customer credit and pay
schedule. This falls under the category of financial information, which should
be protected in transit by security mechanisms that protect confidentiality and
integrity. It is also true that any transport mechanism that complies with RFC
5730 provides those functions. So what I'm missing here is a sentence that
calls this out specifically. Something along the lines of "This extension adds
financial information to the EPP protocol, so confidentiality and integrity
protection must be provided by the transport mechanism. All transports
compliant with RFC5730 provide that"
