- From: Kurt D. Zeilenga <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:27:31 -0800
- To: Timur Shemsedinov <Timur@niist.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>
- Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, paf@cisco.com
At 05:24 AM 2002-11-06, Timur Shemsedinov wrote: >KDZ> Security Considerations >KDZ> It should be clearly noted that protocol provides only >KDZ> a simple clear-text user/password authentication mechanism. >It is stated in unit 7. > > Concerning security, the USP defines only authorization mechanism > and requirement to the USP server and the client realization. This > document does not contain explanations of data loose protection > during its transmission over the transport channel or special > traffic coding against the grabbing. These tasks are duty of the > transport layer protocols using by USP. In short, this paragraph needs work. The terminology and language used is a bit odd. For example, "grabbing" could refer to a session hijacking or could refer to eavesdropping. I suggest you align the terminology with RFC 2828. >KDZ> IANA Considerations >KDZ> The document does not request the registration the URI scheme >KDZ> it details. >I looked RFC2396,2317,2318 concerning this question. All necessary >information, for the URI definition is contained in the document. >But, is it necessary to group or to extract definition into appendix. >It will be great to have the reference to an example of correct >registration. I believe the IANA Considerations section to include (directly or in an Appendix) a registration template for each value it requests to be registered. See RFC 3368 for a recent example. >KDZ> Also, the document does not establish any IANA >KDZ> registries but appears to have a number of extensible fields. >You are right, the registration necessity for RPC interfaces is >supposed in order to prevent the naming conflict. >Whether is it IANA function? For IETF Protocols, yes. See RFC 2234. >KDZ> Also, the Section 1 sentence >KDZ> I am distinctly aware of all complexities ... >Probably, it is better to remove this sentence. > >KDZ> Lastly, in doing a quick review the document, I noticed a number >KDZ> of editorial issues and the usual nits. These I will raise to the >KDZ> author separately (with CC to the Patrik) when I get a chance. >Thanks for your comments; they are really worth. You're welcomed. Kurt
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 18:29:25 UTC