RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-14 Thread Maglione Roberta
Lemon Cc: Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce@tools.ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org Review Team; The IETF; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Ullio Mario Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03 On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: [RM] The intention is to use

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-14 Thread Ben Campbell
Hi, thanks for the response. See additional comments inline. (I removed sections for which no further comment seems necessary) On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote: [...] -- I admit to not being a DHCP expert, but If I understand this draft correctly, it proposes to send

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-14 Thread Ben Campbell
On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: [RM] The intention is to use this method only for environments with native security mechanisms, such as the Broadband Access network. You are right it is not clearly said in the document I can add the following sentence at the end of the

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-14 Thread Ted Lemon
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: Do I infer correctly from your comment that the security properties of the mechanism don't really matter? That is, if the attacker we care about can't eavesdrop in the first place, does this really need to be an HMAC? Hm, I thought about that a

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-14 Thread Ben Campbell
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: Do I infer correctly from your comment that the security properties of the mechanism don't really matter? That is, if the attacker we care about can't eavesdrop in the first place, does this

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-14 Thread Ted Lemon
On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:23 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote: Please let me know if you have additional comments. Thanks! I think you should change this text in the introduction: The mandatory authentication was originally motivated by a legitimate security concern whereby in some network

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-13 Thread Ted Lemon
[RM] The intention is to use this method only for environments with native security mechanisms, such as the Broadband Access network. You are right it is not clearly said in the document I can add the following sentence at the end of the introduction in order to clarify this point: This

RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-10 Thread Maglione Roberta
Team; The IETF Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-07 Thread Ben Campbell
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-03

2012-02-07 Thread Ben Campbell
Additionally, the I got a failed delivery notice (User Unknow) for David Miles's address. On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at