Early Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-

Request Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2009-10-22
Requested 2009-09-18
Authors Martin Thomson, Richard Barnes, James Winterbottom, Hannes Tschofenig
Draft last updated 2009-10-22
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -?? by Donald Eastlake
Assignment Reviewer Donald Eastlake 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-secdir-early-eastlake-2009-10-22
Review completed: 2009-10-22


This is an early security directorate review at the request of the working group.

This draft is of extensions to existing drafts. Those existing

drafts permit a Device to request its location using HTTP based on the

source IP address in the requesting packets and include security

precautions based on the transport used. The first extension expands

"identity" to beyond a simple IP address by providing additional or

alternative identity. The second extension permits an authorized third

party to request the location of a Device for which it provides the


The data representation used within location requests is XML and,

while the schema given looks reasonable, I didn't review it in detail.

Privacy and Security Considerations

This draft appears to have good grasp on the security problems in

authenticating a suitable identity for the requestor of location

information and the Device whose location is sought. The problems and

the general unsuitability of transient or ambiguous identities are

discussed as is the care that needs to be taken with identities that

might have different meaning depending on network context, such as an

address beyond a NAT box.

Appropriate authentication of identity elements is mandated.

The draft reasonably specifies that a policy establishment mechanism

must exist which dictates when a third party would be authorized to

request the location of a Device and that the default policy must be

to deny all such requests.

Overall, at the high level provided, the Privacy and and Security

Considerations look good.


Notwithstanding the fact that it is expanded in the title of the

document, it couldn't hurt to also give the expansion of HELD in the

Terminology section of the draft. Sometimes people fail to see things

in what you would think was the most obvious place :-)

I found this draft a bit heavy on the acronyms that, in some cases,

make it a little harder to understand while saving only a little

space, but this is just a matter of taste.




 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)

 155 Beaver Street

 Milford, MA 01757 USA

d3e3e3 at gmail.com