[secdir] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09

"Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com> Tue, 01 February 2011 19:04 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CBC243.487C2A50"
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:07:33 -0500
Message-ID: <5ABE30CE099A524CBF95C715D37BCACC03A28634@nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09
Thread-Index: AcvCQ0gVV0ZB3J8UQJyiy3Xcw8Z4nQ==
From: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Cc: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
Subject: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09
Precedence: list

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 draft draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09 consolidates the procedures
scattered over several RFC for the assignment of service names and ports
for transport protocols.  It establishes definitions and specifications
where they were previously missing (like syntax for service names).  It
provides a single reference for assignment procedures going forward and
establishes procedures for port/name de-assignment, reuse, revocation,
etc., and a description of the required and optional fields that must be
provided in any request.

 

I did NOT review the referenced documents and did not therefore consider
differences between this procedure and previously employed procedures.

 

There is a required format for communication of a request to the IANA, I
presume by email.  I did not see any mention of the email address to
which the request should be sent (RFC5226 also doesn't seem to mention
it).

 

The procedure requires that the same previous Assignee (or Contact) make
any subsequent request about a port/name assignment, where the email
address is provided in the request.  Security question: how does the
IANA know that it is communicating with the same Assignee/Contact?
There's no recommendation for security of that communication.

 

In the IANA section there is a paragraph:

 

 
   IANA is instructed to create a new service name entry in the service
   name and port number registry [PORTREG] for any entry in the
   "Protocol and Service Names" registry [PROTSERVREG] that does not
   already have one assigned.

 

Are there no guidelines for creating the new service name?  

 

--Sandy Murphy

Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-port… Joe Touch
[secdir] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09 Murphy, Sandra