Re: [CCAMP] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis

Hi all,

some quick comments from me:

Firstly, as we know that all LMP messages are run over UDP with an LMP port number (except, in some cases, the Test messages, which may be limited by the transport mechanism for in-band messaging), so what are the special security requirements needed for LMP compared to the general UDP security? Note that I don't see the answer from Section 3.

Secondly, is there any security requirement for in-band messaging? 

Thirdly, for "Gap Analysis" in Section 4, it seems that Message_ID issue is the only "gap", is there any other "gap"?

Best Regards

Fatai

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 8:37 PM
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Cc: karp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-mahesh-karp-lmp-analysis

At IETF89, I recall CCAMP was asked if it would review the KARP analysis
of LMP and four assented, of which I was one.  I would like any
discussion to take place on an ietf.org list for its archiving and
reliable distribution.  I would be interested to hear the views of the
other three.

My first two thoughts are

- Section 1 seems misdirected.  KARP categorises routing protocols and
one such is TCP point-to-point which encompasses BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP
but notes in RFC6518, RFC6862 that LDP has an unsecured UDP part which
then seems to be neglected.  LMP does not seem to fit any category being
point-to-point over UDP with mandatory security and indeed seems to be
ignored by KARP.  So I think that this section needs reworking.
- Section 2.5 is a paraphrase of parts of s.7 of RFC4204 which seems to
me less clear and less precise - I think that the original text should
be used.

Tom Petch

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp