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

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi John!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 3:24 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; idr-
> [e-mail]; idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>; Alvaro Retana
> <[e-mail]>; Hares Susan <[e-mail]>
> 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
> <[e-mail]> 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