Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-14
Yes
(David Harrington)
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
David Harrington Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2011-05-16)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-05-06)
Unknown
A few thoughts about the MIB module. Nothing of any great importance. It would be helpful if the Imports clause indicated (through comments) the source documents for the MIB modules from which things are being imported. --- SnmpTLSAddress Since I-D.ietf-6man-text-addr-representation is ahead of this document in the process-chain, it would be good if you could include an RFC Editor note requesting the reference to be changed where it appears in the Description and Reference clause in the MIB module in this document. So the comment -- RFC Editor: if I-D.ietf-6man-text-addr-representation fails to get -- published ahead of this draft, RFC3513 has been agreed to be a -- sufficient replacement instead. could also be clarified as a specific instruction. Note that since the I-D is a normative reference, you don't have to worry about the order of publication. --- SnmpTLSFingerprint Some problem with line feeds? --- Do you need to worry about discontinuities with your counters?
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-05-06)
Unknown
I am still quite concerned about the following issues and I don't think I've heard convincing enough answers other than "this was discussed in the WG" and "some security people like Pasi and Jeffrey Hutzelman". So I am reluctantly clearing this. I am leaving the text in the Comment section: In Section 7: snmpTlstmCertSANAny OBJECT-IDENTITY STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Maps any of the following fields using the corresponding mapping algorithms: |------------+------------------------| | Type | Algorithm | |------------+------------------------| | rfc822Name | snmpTlstmCertSANRFC822Name | | dNSName | snmpTlstmCertSANDNSName | | iPAddress | snmpTlstmCertSANIpAddress | |------------+------------------------| The first matching subjectAltName value found in the certificate of the above types MUST be used when deriving the tmSecurityName." ::= { snmpTlstmCertToTSNMIdentities 5 } I am generally concerned about 2 things here: A) too many identity extraction algorithm choices presented in the document B) snmpTlstmCertSANAny in particular relies on certain ordering of subjectAltName types. I don't think existing TLS APIs are geared toward iterating over subjectAltName types, they are usually allow retrieval of a certain subjectAltName item by type.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-29)
Unknown
1. For consistency purposes (as TLS is expanded) expand SNMP in the title. 2. In a couple of places (section 1, section 9.1) I encountered the term 'notification responder' while in all other places 'notification receiver' is used. The terms are not exactly synonims, is the inconsistency intentional? 3. In Section 3.3 When configuring a (D)TLS target, the snmpTargetAddrTDomain and snmpTargetAddrTAddress parameters in snmpTargetAddrTable should be set to the snmpTLSTCPDomain or snmpDTLSUDPDomain object and an appropriate snmpTLSAddress value. When used with the SNMPv3 message processing model, the snmpTargetParamsMPModel column of the snmpTargetParamsTable should be set to a value of 3. The snmpTargetParamsSecurityName should be set to an appropriate securityName value and the snmpTlstmParamsClientFingerprint parameter of the snmpTlstmParamsTable should be set a value that refers to a locally held certificate (and the corresponding private key) to be used. All 'should' seem to need to be capitalized. 4. In Section 4.1 Enterprise configurations are encouraged to map a "subjectAltName" component of the X.509 certificate to the TLSTM specific tmSecurityName. I do not think that we have a clear notion of what an 'enterprise configuration' is and why it would be more appropriate for such a mapping. It looks like a (non-capitalized) may is more appropriate here. 5. In Section 5.2 5b) s/If there is not a corresponding LCD entry/If there is no corresponding LCD entry/ 6. In Section 5.4.4 4) Have (D)TLS close the specified connection. This SHOULD include sending a close_notify TLS Alert to inform the other side that session cleanup may be performed. Unless I miss something sending the close_notify TLS Alert is always part of the closing sequence, so s/SHOULD/MUST/ 7. Some of the references in the MIB module are not included as Informative References - for example RFC 1033, RFC 3490
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-05-10)
Unknown
Cleared.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-05-05)
Unknown