Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

My response is that while I suspect based on the conversation between
myself and Dino that LISP's security model probably adequately protects
mapping system integrity, my confidence in that judgment is low because the
information I need for a security review I can't find in the drafts without
reading every LISP-related document in detail, a time commitment I simply
can't justify. It's possible there's someone else in the security
directorate who knows more about the details of LISP and so would be able
to much more easily answer some of these questions with confidence; if so,
I would recommend that you ask them to take a look. I'm unwilling to say
"LGTM" simply because I can't find a problem in the time I've allocated.

Kyle


On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:55 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks much Kyle for your comments and Dino for resolving!
>
> Cutting to the end where Dino asked for help-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:40 PM
> To: Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF SecDir <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] list <
> [e-mail]>; Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>; Mirja Kühlewind <
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
>
>
> > What I might recommend is either an augmentation of, or a new document
> analogous to (and informationally referencing),
> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction that covers the expected security properties
> of the overall design and the requirements for each of the subcomponents in
> a way that someone can understand without referring to any document other
> than the high-level architecture itself. draft-ietf-lisp-introduction is
> actually quite good at getting the general point of LISP across to someone
> new; I want to see something similar for LISP's security model. I think
> that's going to be better than inserting clarifying text here or there.
> I've actually read enough of this stuff at this point that I'm not sure I
> can enumerate exactly what's missing where. The threat model document could
> potentially be folded into that, but it has to start by painting a picture
> of the security that someone new to LISP can quickly understand.
>
> I’ll yield to the WG to respond to this.
>
> Dino
>
> [deborah]
>
> It's difficult to do *one* overview document on an evolving technology,
> especially if the intention is to provide reference to other documents
> which are also evolving. Lisp-intro is already having its problems and it
> is not published yet.
>
> As Mark Nottingham noted in his "How to Read an RFC" blog, when reading
> RFCs, for better or worse and the resulting frustration, it is "necessary
> to read not only the relevant text but also anything that it references":
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/how-read-rfc/
>
> I'd suggest a wiki would be a better tool to capture this "overview"
> informational material. Not only can the format be easier on the eye, it
> can be a shared effort and timely updated. Similar to Benoit's work on his
> YANG tree dependencies, it would be helpful if a working group provided a
> working group tree of documents and it could even reference other working
> group documents.
>
>