IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sat, 22 October 2022 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18595C1524CB; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 06:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.571, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q9fAt7C1ASWs; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 06:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 149E7C1522A7; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 06:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29M9VqBQ013321; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 14:26:41 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=U7oYXRlR/bICzkbdRlTCM5FK7h/Zq0KsgSDgjd5dlBI=; b=KvsCGzlSMdPQaYgy68tIYbPqCg2M1k4HlEgVb5TKaFvS1Tq2LJCTkU6Ofqfi5SrI06z2 m3d3WCDt8/u3GJR6+AS0gp7s4cr1LdSAQx9E3c0VxN0gC9qUu8Nka9m9R4m4W3zEk1vX YrPzHQPeFA8GBPm8qVMzv6DAKGgwcqb8U9+9MY7A8uw+rfMd0JC+bpj9EZv1tkA6YA7d H3wof18P5Je5TEaCxzQjrZ4IMA3lmDo/3KJmzx1Et7v6HLhSgVlmXAXotYZOeM8fkJrs PUjW4PMyBKeZ5xMz9BVqkdG1OIxdF8sh/I+OifbuQjxMmaqmYtL/4taXCzwy+PRdTrjS QQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 (a72-247-45-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.31] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kc5cvraw6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 22 Oct 2022 14:26:41 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29MDLviL029018; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:26:40 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.200]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kcbuxh238-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:26:40 -0400
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.203) by ustx2ex-dag4mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.50.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.12; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 06:26:37 -0700
Received: from ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) by ustx2ex-dag4mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.50.203]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.012; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 06:26:37 -0700
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10
Thread-Index: AQHY10SFJeRr/HMmdkWx5lIzts7Nqq4aQXg8gAB2GgA=
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 13:26:37 +0000
Message-ID: <9B146BAD-B0D1-4F58-AA14-E9AB6ADB1155@akamai.com>
References: <166481422370.58279.1362610593377260426@ietfa.amsl.com> <CO1PR05MB8492FDFF1BC443B938617283AC2C9@CO1PR05MB8492.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR05MB8492FDFF1BC443B938617283AC2C9@CO1PR05MB8492.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.66.22101101
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2022-10-22T09:23:52.9582011Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9B146BADB0D14F58AA14E9AB6ADB1155akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-21_04,2022-10-21_01,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2210220083
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: w9vK3rJdvlPgrXWNVTJpPaXTFHj35n2s
X-Proofpoint-GUID: w9vK3rJdvlPgrXWNVTJpPaXTFHj35n2s
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-21_04,2022-10-21_01,2022-06-22_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2210220083
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/HU6sbZBi5Fd9SZTHhRDrarHkY9g>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 13:26:47 -0000

Tony,

I believe those changes will address my comments.  If I don’t get around to updating my review, please accept this email as “proof” :)

From: Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>
Date: Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 5:45 AM
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10

Rich, thanks for comments


  1.  I will explain in glossary quickly that L1 and L2 pertains to ISIS concepts
  2.  Paragraph moved before figure
  3.  Paragraph 1 and 2 talk about different tunnel types hence I kept it separate. I pointed out the tunnel type.


  *   Tony

From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Monday, 3 October 2022 at 18:23
To: secdir@ietf.org <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection.all@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>, lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Reviewer: Rich Salz
Review result: Has Nits

I am a routing naïf and do not have a lot of time these days. I hope this
review is still useful, anyway.

The glossary was very helpful.  I still don't have a clear understanding of L1
and L2.

The picture is a tour de force.  The description "Figure 1 is an example..."
paragraph should be moved before the picture, not directly after it.

Sections 6 and 7 indicate, to me, that this document is comprehensive and
informed by real-world concerns.

Sec 9, Security Considerations.
This is where I did the most careful reading.
"If an attacker should be able..."  s/should be able/can/
s/could be in most extreme case/could be in THE most extreme case/
It was a bit surprising to me to see the same sentence at the end of both
paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.  Maybe remove them and move them to the start of
paragraph 3.

I think the risks are well-described, and the importance to preventing is made.
Is it possible to mitigate the damage if a risk occurs?  "No" is a reasonable
answer.



Juniper Business Use Only

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email