IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association

tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com> Wed, 26 October 2022 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kondtir@gmail.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 DA0F9C14F74D; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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=gmail.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 KjTBrlRz_Ubl; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FBDDC14F6E5; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id be13so28918887lfb.4; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iBPOfoP89EYdjY/8WxPYPhxCdY2CNscrzvtG7zxCJHw=; b=Ru3+SDHaJV2E2u8l4SEcjyL0zDpa3a9KKbiTgzr89sKtxlZTs66jT1EUoxzFCmGMg/ LoQecY1Kj+RFn2KT3VxoYCp3WZ+c5cbJlu1J3jzkg9TUu96BXfmAMZQb6iFWoqnjk4ww 2QLfkOEwKnDR41iPJC5ROAhV/cZQWSYVUEqhuMBEXu+t3Uaar6aRZW2jZAfaMUDRUQgx E8gsBgVQUbwzIE9K789CjpJbrJmyhmx4jnIjALOL3ZoJ90+OHik/SufhBear9jtyWUAo 3y0mVcU4ocY7Nep+ezQkKpMvOw1r4yjkBzlKLZuODCI7CL1Q5U848LUJ7lYyOOg+asap eBkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=iBPOfoP89EYdjY/8WxPYPhxCdY2CNscrzvtG7zxCJHw=; b=Wta8LXxjMC8lmnF7imPo8Z9bZJJZekV8kt2uWKezsIjyAZGVYVe9tcY6JM4SS8O3I4 bE5y8e3UvVfj7/hCX8/BX2D2pgxKeqpEeKQzLnI+1ww2CmWX4hgaV97KgkRv2CXcflEW gvZ0XWK0YQv+sUIu8X0inbQ0G6Kq0eeZuWioqAYhgLjg+Jm27JO+GMR80qHDkry+Suk1 RUOBCzEpH8J+k3sO/2bN7r94UiU5+mC9VVLSPbIjxe9xPKPM8VYmv63uWgmeJt76qbhd R7wVODJNQQtCkyanPMLlpMZPcp+VjMCb3Mw5A1F4JcdaWXMMcB3hcK+yE41oRDFF3bAj Y3xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2SsQ61zGCW+64lM7LIm5anvJRcHF8vW12SHQ+Y832Rda2IjDgJ hFomMvaJQLDLcKvKsNmuGNDZOEW2tabYVlYh090=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5rjmOObHQZMyp4RBYt0zqutf0JgOmy2up+rkrbq7hA0SVwn6/k+Xem1P2s+ugtfHsXqaIMnsUw+wNS2KpQw6I=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:48f:b0:4a4:7988:b737 with SMTP id v15-20020a056512048f00b004a47988b737mr15307966lfq.28.1666794053970; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFpG3gdYxDAsTi_5TTKQsjKpxBbHutVOcu3-biR=BMiGEjwKcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP7zK5a+qqQPxuSTzVA4ejA++D06ZSw1_hQpb0Hx49RyfGD_4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7zK5a+qqQPxuSTzVA4ejA++D06ZSw1_hQpb0Hx49RyfGD_4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 19:50:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFpG3gcGzL5Z+zA7e6_yzPWp2RZrHhZ5MvDSh9DdNFOUcnriiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-vn-association.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000802e0805ebf0bbd4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/IQMAMeGqPJGpF4mNBzWzT_cUVHs>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-vn-association
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: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:20:59 -0000

On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 18:19, Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:

> Hi Tiru,
>
> Now that the document is in the RFC Editor queue, I would caution against
> making further updates in this document unless we have to.
>
> This document just adds another association-type and the comments are more
> of a generic nature. If the WG feels that any update is needed, it makes
> sense to do that independently. More inline...
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 5:56 PM tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Tirumaleswar Reddy
>> Review result:  Ready with issues
>>
>> I apologize for missing the deadline for this review.
>>
>> This document relies on [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281] and [RFC8697] for
>> security considerations. RFC5440 discusses the use of TCP-MD5 (obsoleted),
>> TCP Authentication Option and TLS 1.2. Further, RFC5440 refers to RFC7525
>> for TLS recommendations.
>>
>> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association says use of TLS is recommended.
>>
>> My comments below:
>>
>> 1. Any specific reason for using "SHOULD" instead of using "MUST" for
>> TLS. If TLS is not used in certain scenarios, how is a malicious PCEP
>> speaker detected ?
>>
>
> The use of TCP-AO for instance.
>

I am not sure how the identity of the PCEP speaker is validated using
TCP-AO.


>
> 2. Do you see any challenges encouraging the use of TLS 1.3 ?
>>
>
> It is a work in progress. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13/
>
>
>
>> 3. You may want to make it clear that this document does not rely on
>> TCP-MD5.
>>
>
> That is well established. See
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6952.html#section-2.5
>
>
>
>> 4. If existing implementations are using TLS 1.2, I suggest referring to
>> the recommendations in draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis instead of rfc7525. Please
>> see Appendix A in draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis, it highlights the differences
>> with rfc7525.
>>
>>
> RFC 7525 will get obsoleted by the new RFC# assigned for the bis
> eventually. We can also update RFC 8253 if needed. I dont think we should
> bury this in this small extension though.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> -Tiru
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email