On 4/20/16 3:50 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 1:23 PM, joel jaeggli <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 4/19/16 10:12 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> (1) The ClockIdentity is described as being generated based on an EUI-64 >>> address as described in IEEE 1588-2008 Section 7.5.2.2.2. But in IEEE >>> 1588-2008, there are two different ways the clock identifier can be >>> generated, the other being a non-EUI-64 address defined in 7.5.2.2.3. Why >>> is that option left out of the ClockIdentity description? >>> >>> In general I was dismayed to see the re-use of EUI-64 for clock identity >>> for the security and privacy drawbacks, since it's not particularly clear >>> that re-using those identifiers is necessary here. But if such a fix is >>> warranted this MIB is not the place to do it in any event. >> >> I don't see a whole lot wrong with using a mac address as an identifier >> in a management system. 1588 speakers are frequently adjecent to each >> other and almost always within the same management domain, > > Are you saying you don’t see a problem with not reflecting the > mechanisms from 7.5.2.2.3 here? Or just generally that you don’t see a > problem with using a MAC address as an identifier in this case?
I don't see a problem generally with using a mac address as a unique identifier in a management system. sources of actual genuine uniqueness that are preserved across firmware upgrades, reboots and config wipes and which are common across all platforms are hard enough to come by without ruling them out. they're not of course immutable if you're disinclined to expose them. Are they appropriate in general for exposure on the internet or in local but untrusted environments? No; 1588 master-slave relationships are also inappropriate under such circumstances. > Alissa > >> >>> (2) Looking at >>> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security I recall that >>> other MIB documents we've reviewed recently have listed out the specific >>> tables/objects that may be considered vulnerable or sensitive, even if >>> those objects are read-only. Why doesn't this document do that? I would >>> think all of the clock identity objects would belong in that bucket at a >>> minimum. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
