Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03

From: Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 01:52:20 +0000

I plan to update the section with the following:

In general the security measures described in [RFC4447bis] are
   adequate for this protocol. However the use of MD5 as the method of
   securing an LDP control plane is no longer considered adequately
   secure. Implementations should be written in such a way that they can
   migrate to a more secure cryptographic hash function when the next
   authentication method to be used in the LDP might not be simple hash
   based authentication algorithm.

Thanks,

Sami

On 8/31/17, 4:29 PM, "Tero Kivinen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Stewart Bryant writes:
>> How about if we changed the security text to something of the form:
>> 
>> In general the security measures described in [RFC4447bis] are
>> adequate for this protocol. However the use of MD5 as the method of
>> securing an LDP control plane is no longer considered adequately
>> secure. Implementations should be written in such a way that they
>> can migrate to a more secure cryptographic hash function when that
>> function is agreed as the new default hash for LDP.
>
>Looks mostly good, except I would say "... can migrate to more secure
>authentication algorithm when ...", i.e., the next authentication
>method to be used in the LDP might not be simple hash based
>authentication algorithm. 
>-- 
>[email-masked]