Security Threats to Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF)
draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-10-28
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-10-17
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-09-26
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-09-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-09-02
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-09-02
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-09-02
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-09-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2016-09-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-09-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-09-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-09-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-09-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-09-02
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-08-26
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-08-26
|
06 | Jiazi Yi | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-08-26
|
06 | Jiazi Yi | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-06.txt |
2016-08-24
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-08-24
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Eric Gray. |
2016-08-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-08-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-08-18
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-08-17
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-08-17
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft! |
2016-08-17
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-08-17
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-08-17
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-08-16
|
05 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-08-16
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-08-16
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-08-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-11
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2016-08-11
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-08-11
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-08-11
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-08-11
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-11
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-08-04
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-08-04
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-08-04
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2016-08-04
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2016-08-03
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2016-08-03
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2016-08-03
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2016-08-01
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Stefan Winter |
2016-08-01
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Stefan Winter |
2016-07-29
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2016-07-29
|
05 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "Justin Dean" , manet-chairs@ietf.org, chris.dearlove@baesystems.com, manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "Justin Dean" , manet-chairs@ietf.org, chris.dearlove@baesystems.com, manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Security Threats for Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF)' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyzes security threats of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), including the vulnerabilities of duplicate packet detection and relay set selection mechanisms. This document is not intended to propose solutions to the threats described. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-08-18 |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-07-28
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05 === I just finished reading this document. Very nice!! I have only one significant comment (and some nits below): Section … === AD Review of draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05 === I just finished reading this document. Very nice!! I have only one significant comment (and some nits below): Section 5. (Threats to Relay Set Selection) describes threats that are NHDP-specific. Some of the details (link spoofing, for example) are already covered in RFC7186, but only for MPR calculation. I think that this document should be marked as Updating RFC7186 because it adds details as related to other RSS algorithms. Please add the appropriate marking and a sentence or two in the Abstract and Introduction. I am going to request that we start the IETF Last Call today — and will place this document in the next available IESG Telechat. Please take my comments in with any other LC comments that might come. Thanks! Alvaro. Nits: n1. There's an extra " in the second bullet in Section 3. n2. Please expand ICV. n3. draft-ietf-manet-ibs has been published as RFC7859 n4. I would get rid of Section 6. (Future Work) and simply add the text to Section 7. (Security Considerations). |
2016-07-27
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-07-27
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Justin Dean" <bebemaster@gmail.com>, aretana@cisco.com from "Justin Dean" <bebemaster@gmail.com> |
2016-05-02
|
05 | Justin Dean | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The type of document is Informational. It provides discussion and analyzes applicable to the use of an experimental internet protocol and represents working group consensus. The document indicates "Informational". (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document analyzes security threats of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF), including the vulnerabilities of its two main components: duplicate packet detection and relay set selection mechanisms. Working Group Summary: There was not much discussion of this document on the WG list, but some support was received, and no dissent was expressed. Document Quality: The document describes the key security issues for the protcool it considers (SMF), i.e. duplicate packet detection and relay selection, the main issues regarding whaich are clearly described. Personnel Christopher Dearlove (chris.dearlove@baesystems.com) is the document shepherd for this document. Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com) is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has personally reviewed the document. His observations were taken into account in two updates from -03 to -05. Some editorial nits identified reviewing -05 are noted here; these do not prevent forwarding to the IESG for publication. - Section 3 after bullets "wrangle" -> "wrangling". - Section 4.2.2 Expand DoS. - The first informative reference has now been updated to -05, but that's the document shepherd's fault in delaying this review. (Note that this draft is now in the RFC Editor's queue, so in due course can be replaced by an RFC reference.) (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had limited reported reviews (the only one acknowledged is by the document shepherd). This does not rise to the level of "concern" but may be noted. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The shepherd does not have any concerns about the document needing additional reviews of the nature indicated, other than the first. This is a document about security of a routing protocol, security and routing reviews are therefore expected. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. All authors have confirmed to the document shepherd that they are not aware of any IPR relating to this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is WG consensus, no comments opposing the document have been received. Expressed support was limited, but present. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Nobody has expressed any discontent or threat for appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The file produces no idnits errors or flaws. It produces one warning and one comment about document age and the ID reference noted above. Both of these are due to the document shepherd. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? The document has split its references into normative and informative. The document shepherd agrees with the split. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document contains an empty IANA consideration section for removal by the RFC Editor. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. This document does not add or modify any IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. This document does not contain any formal language. |
2016-05-02
|
05 | Justin Dean | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2016-05-02
|
05 | Justin Dean | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-05-02
|
05 | Justin Dean | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-05-02
|
05 | Justin Dean | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-05-02
|
05 | Justin Dean | Notification list changed to "Justin Dean" <bebemaster@gmail.com> |
2016-04-14
|
04 | Christopher Dearlove | Changed document writeup |
2016-03-08
|
05 | Jiazi Yi | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-05.txt |
2016-02-15
|
04 | Jiazi Yi | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-04.txt |
2015-11-06
|
03 | Jiazi Yi | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-03.txt |
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Christopher Dearlove" to (None) |
2015-03-23
|
02 | Jiazi Yi | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-02.txt |
2015-03-17
|
01 | Stan Ratliff | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2015-03-16
|
01 | Ulrich Herberg | Notification list changed to "Christopher Dearlove" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> |
2015-03-16
|
01 | Ulrich Herberg | Document shepherd changed to Christopher Dearlove |
2015-03-14
|
01 | Ulrich Herberg | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2015-02-10
|
01 | Justin Dean | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-09-14
|
01 | Jiazi Yi | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-01.txt |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Ulrich Herberg | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Ulrich Herberg | This document now replaces draft-yi-manet-smf-sec-threats instead of None |
2014-08-13
|
00 | Ulrich Herberg | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-smf-sec-threats-00.txt |