Re: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Ben -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:37 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: The IESG; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; isis-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> On 12 Apr 2017, at 16:40, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> 
> > Ben -
> >
> > Thanx for the review.
> > Inline.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 1:51 PM
> >> To: The IESG
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; Hannes Gredler;
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04:
> >> (with
> >> COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>
> >>
> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >> -4: "In general, the use of authentication is incompatible with auto-
> >>    configuration as it requires some manual configuration."
> >>
> >> What are the consequences/risks due to that incompatibility?
> >>
> >
> > [Les:] The "incompatibility" is that now some manual configuration is
> > required.
> > The intent of the draft is to define a profile such that a compliant
> > implementation could simply boot up w/o any configuration and be able
> > to interoperate with other routers running in auto-config mode. If
> > authentication is desired then at a minimum the authentication key has
> > to be configured which means the zero touch capability is compromised.
> > That is all we are trying to say.
> 
> Sorry, my question was not clear. Obviously there is value in running in auto-
> config mode, and some people might choose to skip authentication so they
> can do it. Is it possible to give a brief description (or cite one
> elsewhere) of the tradeoffs involved in that decision?
> 
[Les:] Based on previous security related comments we have agreed to modify the Security section to say:

"In the absence of cryptographic authentication it is possible for an attacker to inject  a PDU falsely indicating  there is a duplicate system-id. This may trigger automatic restart of the protocol using the duplicate-id resolution procedures defined in this document. 

Note that the use of authentication is incompatible with auto- configuration as it requires some manual configuration.
..."

Will that suffice?

   Les

> >
> >    Les