Re: [Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A35126BF7; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Qy8qlavvYO72; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE1CF126CC7; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2190; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491859742; x=1493069342; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Qhyama8WPo2ruAKNH7J/24JDX+CPIv69v9aXIBSrFn4=; b=FA3B3PckwkiBzIXanKz8pK0K2yfgjFISMjrAWHQIJvrmD3GgsQxmBK3v KjA0/vWhqZmpK4g4BI4mLoGLmkU/z7DaXW1pJ5kC23ZMmkxzmczvn7xyX 3or24DhDRR6E1felMQsbhTC1kHp4zBpepaDrBb55+kgMS+X8iGTQjRkOn Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D6AQCn+OtY/4MNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1OBbAeDX4oTkUiVV4IPhiQCGoNOPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMjEUUMBAIBCA4DBAEBAwIjAwICAjAUAQgIAgQBDQUIigepC4ImiwEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuFRYRwh1yCXwEEliCGWwGST4IIhS6KFJN/AR8?= =?us-ascii?q?4gQVbFYcbdYhSgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,183,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="406425815"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Apr 2017 21:28:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3ALSrjC028215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:28:53 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:28:52 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:28:52 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
Thread-Index: AQHSsjdoqwxVNfAN00mB3vcmaDA1DqG/HafQ
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:28:52 +0000
Message-ID: <59da15bc7fa64e9281b94a2694919105@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <149185541631.3069.18371935891180367330@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149185541631.3069.18371935891180367330@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.67.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/tZkIkFrip2XqgietMojiBdRzeNc>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:29:04 -0000

Joseph -

Thanx for the review.

The introduction defines the purposes(sic) of the extensions . Please reread that and let me know if you still have concerns.

The extensions are not for security purposes - as a matter of principle I am concerned if a new requirement of every draft is to explicitly state all the things that it is not intended to do. :-)

   Les




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Salowey [mailto:joe@salowey.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 1:17 PM
> To: secdir@ietf.org
> Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-02
> 
> Reviewer: Joseph Salowey
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
> just like any other last call comments.
> 
> The document does not explicitly discuss the use-cases for multi instance IS-
> IS.  Is this intended to be used a security mechanism for isolation?  The
> document should provide some guidance here.
> 
> If the mechanism is intended as an isolation mechanism for security
> then I think more guidance is appropriate.   For example, in this case
> shouldn't each instance have its own authentication configuration?
> 
> If it is not intended as a security mechanism then the document probably say
> so.
>