Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-09.txt

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stig,

Many thanks for your comments. Greatly appreciated!

Rev 10 is posted to address your comment.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10

How the diffs addresses your comments are mentioned in-line with [ZA].
Please review and advise.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 26, 2021 at 3:27 PM
To: "<[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, 6man WG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-09.txt
Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Friday, March 26, 2021 at 3:27 PM

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG
review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-09.txt
Reviewer: Stig Venaas
Review Date: 2021-03-26
IETF LC End Date: 2021-03-22
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

Comments:

The document is quite good and easy to read. There are a couple of
minor language issues that I'm sure the RFC editor will take care of.
My only concern is the security considerations.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

The Security considerations need more details.

[ZA] Based on your feedback, we have updated  the security section in the rev 10.

Aren't there any concerns about attackers sending packets with the
O-flag set? Could packets be sent to the OAM process at a high rate?

[ZA] The updated security section and section 2.1.1 acknowledges this concern and provides mitigation.

As mentioned, packet punting should be rate limited. Could an attacker
cause legitimate probes to be dropped by sending too many illegitimate
probes?

[ZA] An implementation may implement rate limit for O-flag independent of any other rate limits applied at the box for any other purposes.

Rate-limiting is a SHOULD. There should be some discussion on the
importance of rate-limiting. Why is it important, and what may be the
reasons for not rate-limiting? Since it isn't a MUST, it appears there
may be cases where it makes sense not to rate-limit.


[ZA] In addition to rate limiter, SRH Flags are protected by the HMAC TLV, as described in Section 2.1.2.1 of [RFC8754]<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754#section-2.1.2.1>.

Nits:
A few minor language issues, but these are very minor and will be
addressed by the RFC editor.
Some references are not up to date.

[ZA] Many thanks. Please review the rev10 diffs and advise of any comments.

Regards,
Stig