Subject: Re: [core] AD review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-23

From: Jaime Jiménez <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 13:35:04 +0300

Dear all,

sorry for the delay on this discussion. We have had a parallel thread and now I realise the discussion was not on the list nor with the ADs on it. 

Christian can correct me but the current situation is that the two outstanding issues can be solved:

> >    This section describes how the registering endpoint can maintain the
> >    registrations that it created.  The registering endpoint can be the
> >    registrant-ep or the CT.  An endpoint SHOULD NOT use this interface
> >
> > Why SHOULD NOT (instead of MUST NOT) and how is this enforced?

There was a previous reply from Christian on this, which makes me (and I suppose others) to lean towards keeping the SHOULD  NOT.

"This is more expressing the intention than anything enforcable. Frankly,
it is a bit imprecise: The goal is to discourage any agents enumerating
registrations from the endpoint lookup and trying to enhance them.
Endpoints switching addresses (thus technically becoming different
endpoints) and updating their registration is encouraged.

There are some cases in the middle we probably don't want to rule out
but caution against, invoking "SHOULD"'s "know what you're doing" which
we may not want to rule out (but have not discussed).

In the end, enforcement is up to the security policy -- if an agent
knows a registration URI and has the authorization to act on it, that
will succeed."

> >
> >    for registrations that it did not create.  The registrations are
> >    resources of the RD. 
>   [snip]
> > At the end of section 9.3:
> >    It is expected that the registry will receive between 5 and 50 
> > registrations in total over the next years.
> >
> > This will not age well! Maybe remove this text from the document and 
> > add it to the spherding write-up?

Christian will remove the paragraph and I'll update the writeup.

Thanks!
-- Jaime

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 13:13:27 +0100

Hi Jaime,

> sorry for the delay on this discussion. We have had a parallel thread and now I realise the discussion was not on the list nor with the ADs on it.
Yes, that didn't help ;-).
> knows a registration URI and has the authorization to act on it, that

Two comments on this:

1) If this is not supposed to be enforcable, then the document shouldn't 
use RFC 2119 language in this sentence, I think lowercase "should" would 
be much better.

2) This is related to my question (I believe I've asked it earlier) 
about how security policy is going to be implemented in relationship to 
resource directory. What are the current or expected mechanism? The 
document is silent about that and this causes me concerns.

> Christian will remove the paragraph and I'll update the writeup.

Great.

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: Christian Amsüss <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:51:42 +0200

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:13:27PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > sorry for the delay on this discussion. We have had a parallel
> > thread and now I realise the discussion was not on the list nor with
> > the ADs on it.
>

neither did me missing a few points in your response over the more
difficult topic of DNS-SD integration, which I've only just processed
into text ready to receive a check from other authors. (At [1] in case
you want to peek into diffs, and to be submitted as a -25 together with
the input from Genart).

[1]: https://github.com/core-wg/resource-directory/pull/242

> 1) If this is not supposed to be enforcable, then the document shouldn't use
> RFC 2119 language in this sentence, I think lowercase "should" would be much
> better.

That's in the proposed text now.

> 2) This is related to my question (I believe I've asked it earlier) about
> how security policy is going to be implemented in relationship to resource
> directory. What are the current or expected mechanism? The document is
> silent about that and this causes me concerns.

I'll raise that today, along with the similar questions from the Genart
and Secdir reviews.

Thanks
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 13:54:45 +0100

> That's in the proposed text now.
Your proposed changes look good. And thank you for fixing a few more 
things I reported earlier.