Re: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 03 December 2020 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D8F3A09E9; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:55:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sjTnfNy2SuJ2; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD7423A09E5; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 0B33taft027111; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:55:36 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 0B33taft027111
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1606967736; bh=BK9iVBzbPPyR+wbomeet2CKWL52Fqqeq3zleBS4T3hU=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pGH2eA4FdOy2RsUDzs6RTb4LNC8T2ZSjMXQ/zl3NYRL/h3JoBn5Ne/eUk+5D4HXle KxsJD+PG3Rhhs7rFN36THlS1aWUIt1lhkYvyzD5IyefT7AbRJDASxnHmGvycF6mk5s gY40NFev8/nk6lO2yWOR4v8LxBPf6pe1waLc/JuM=
Received: from MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (muriel.ad.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.47]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 0B33tVec041591; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:55:31 -0500
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:55:31 -0500
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.002; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:55:31 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHWx1s3YBEyWsTPbECNny8tkbXRWKnkl1uAgAAoq3A=
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:55:30 +0000
Message-ID: <8b27a469b9f745ada895c498380159f6@cert.org>
References: <160676974641.7444.11457973014978444006@ietfa.amsl.com> <847123B1-67D3-41FF-A156-A6A25F66186B@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <847123B1-67D3-41FF-A156-A6A25F66186B@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.131]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hV2t6-8mq2dOvmXO-PvLuiON5o4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 03:55:41 -0000

Hi John!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 3:24 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps@ietf.org; idr-
> chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>rg>; Alvaro Retana
> <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> Thanks to you and Scott for the review. My comments in line below.
> 
> > On Nov 30, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> >
> > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-20: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discus
> > s-criteria.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SDO6amF-
> 195w2tACTwBncPxZpEwE3lYKshrE25
> > ln2IlWuMo7eyz3ZCHi-_XmfQ$ for more information about IESG DISCUSS and
> > COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iet
> > f-idr-tunnel-encaps/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SDO6amF-
> 195w2tACTwBncPxZpEwE3lYKs
> > hrE25ln2IlWuMo7eyz3ZCGbyG-DkQ$
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thank you to Scott Kelly for performing the SECDIR review.
> >
> > ** Section 1.5.  Per “Because RFC 8365 depends on RFC 5640, it is
> > similarly obsoleted.”, this seems inconsistent with the meta-data
> > header in the document (as RFC8365 isn’t obsoleted).
> 
> Right, see my reply to Martin — this was an error, fixed in the forthcoming
> version 21.

Thanks.

> > ** Section 11.  Please use normative language on the applicability
> > text restricting use to a single administrative domain.
> >
> > OLD
> > However, it is intended that the Tunnel Encapsulation
> >   attribute be used only within a well-defined scope, e.g., within a
> >   set of Autonomous Systems that belong to a single administrative
> >   entity.
> >
> > NEW (or something like this)
> >
> > However, the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute MUST only be used within a
> > well-defined scope such as a set of Autonomous Systems that belong to
> > a single administrative entity.
> 
> Adopted, but as a SHOULD instead of a MUST — I don’t think we want to
> absolutely preclude people experimenting with promiscuous Internet-wide
> tunneling if they really want to.

This gives me a bit of pause.  I read the current text of "well-defined scope" as equivalent to a MUST which is why I noted this as a simple COMMENT.  I shouldn't have assumed.  If the intent is a SHOULD, then providing that clarity with normative language continues to be helpful.  However, as a SHOULD, the current security considerations need to be bolstered to cover the cases where Internet wide tunneling is happening (i.e., outside of the well scoped domain).

> > ** Section 12.  Typo. s/tunnelling/tunneling/
> 
> British vs. American spellings, my nemesis. Fixed.

Ooops.  I was faithfully reporting what my US-English configured reader flagged without giving further consideration.  My mistake.

> > ** Section 14.2.  Per “Specifically, the following code points should
> > be marked as deprecated”, how does one mark code points as deprecated
> > in the “BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types” registry
> > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-
> parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml*tunnel-types__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!SDO6amF-
> 195w2tACTwBncPxZpEwE3lYKshrE25ln2IlWuMo7eyz3ZCGd89XW4g$ ).
> > I don’t see such a column, or is the intend simply to update the
> > Reference column to this document?
> 
> (Already addressed.)
> 
> > ** Section 15.  Clarifying text
> > OLD
> > "hijacking" of traffic (insertion of
> >   an undesired node in the path)
> >
> > NEW
> > "hijacking" of traffic (insertion of an undesired node in the path
> > allowing for inspection or modification of traffic, or avoidance of
> > security controls)

Thanks.

Roman

> Thanks, done.
> 
> —John