Re: [lisp] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 30 June 2022 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C120CC15A748; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 zJMa3sOApH1c; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (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 E0A67C15A739; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id bx13so15486023ljb.1; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IX0zbA9Fm/tbdgOHAFOSretjcasB9CheXlfW9q8kot8=; b=UW/+qfIUsLggVJirbVa+A6Otb4jr5zaEkLMVCecndcq7OwM2PFiv2ZkDotR8dwQinC zSmbN/cT1oSDzpVaaH/hR4HfhKNId2KIwxQ8QwkX/bKO192eejAQpc4fVlRMjw39blq2 B35KY3zPav/fXVFk4+Khl8vh/7k4afc1uRvsRcN3GIAZJ9wq9jewFmNgver0CaTOYhcr j7qfkpcgSbdMMhtueWuLU/02B8t2VNCo7hQhq+fAj+65Ia+HQXwvJS1y9vsVaC0SeJ8b 449iwQSEgdV35qmNzhaHMZACLqxNnT4805Ad4pqT1Cca3kyxlajd4OP3Nc11u+Xoe9+J 9C4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IX0zbA9Fm/tbdgOHAFOSretjcasB9CheXlfW9q8kot8=; b=cqMaKmPFnMWdKCU5KhFGPquCWt6gWL3/+3li859jM+kFBQ3egSRJzj8hSTvpZYwiE3 JAaPosieNzIj5E71soXVb2kQOGmpgRSLAQJCTP2iq+dMeKhILzKpJEZFg3i9mPiutkXx O4lz4B2R0dPHaALWK9QqSDqbWMFyKBp2vV4XRx737DSVgrE595MwqCo8/faUe99QJLne 6Hl9S4VFQCKrag89fMXD8jWmgvoX8rqQ39FinxTVxvA13/WiGPmWLmiTE6IXTEMaTuEw mguOa8x50gHo7BQnd+xYvG4M5ZV+RyqFsxdx2N8gkX37fMG745nUNOk5oMR4L+bdWcT+ pGqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/p8HAvR82kAX06+EcvqAw76TcH91gRnmMTIMWjl9gdRM1LDWEm kyxMf1c12octVhqzKswflsN2t4kEQtemEEsWnZwxG05xK6gppg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1t0P261T7PEZfpikN6AMUXLktT0lSeyB9Y+yqiSv0Lm4OKorQ4Jumhrw0k6KJJnf1dr58d3ThInMBuV1ozxRuk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b165:0:b0:25b:df29:562a with SMTP id a5-20020a2eb165000000b0025bdf29562amr5455620ljm.183.1656611860554; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165657418731.27259.9994473035313701987@ietfa.amsl.com> <4178D6A8-404A-4CE4-BEF2-910C5E1920E9@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <4178D6A8-404A-4CE4-BEF2-910C5E1920E9@gigix.net>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:57:28 -1000
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaS9KV1gdQ26v5Yw7ed=2AbyPPfOj8y++jLENxYdoe+aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-sec@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007aa89705e2ae01c1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/c_HQBIyhEZT1JSQerlUMbLIN6VU>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:57:44 -0000

Hi Luigi,

All of your proposed changes look good to me.

-MSK

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:47 AM Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:

> Hi Murray,
>
> Thanks a lot for your review.
> Please see inline.
>
> On 30 Jun 2022, at 09:29, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27: Discuss
>
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sections 8.1 through 8.5 all create registries with "Specification
> Required"
> rules.  RFC 8126 says this about "Specification Required":
>
>   As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated
>   expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough
>   understanding of Section 5 is important.
>
> Only Section 8.5 includes any such guidance.  Is none needed for the other
> four?
>
>
> Actually all of them need guidance which is basically the same and could
> be provide at the beginning of the IANA section.
>
>  Also, I'm having trouble understanding the advice that Section 8.5 does
> give.
>
>
> The beginning of the IANA section  can be:
>
> IANA is requested to create the sub-registries listed in the
> following sections in the "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
> Parameters" registry.
>
> New values beyond this document have to be assigned according to  the
> "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].
> Expert review should assess the security properties of newly added
> functions, so that encryption robustness is remains strong.
> For instance, at the time of this writing the use of SHA-256-based
> functions is
> considered to provide sufficient protection. Consultation with security
> experts may be needed.
>
> Does the above text look good to you or do you have any suggestion of a better formulation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I concur with John; this was generally well-done and easy to understand.
> Nice
> work.  A couple of suggestions:
>
> In Section 6.1 has:
>
>   E: ETR-Cant-Sign bit.  This bit is set to 1 to signal ...
>
> I think you mean "If this bit is set to 1, it signals ..." or something
> similar.  Taken literally, the current text means you always set it to 1,
> but I
> don't think that's what you meant to say.
>
>
> You are right: it should read:
>
> E: ETR-Cant-Sign bit. If this bit is set to 1, it signals to the ITR
>             that at least one of the ETRs authoritative for the EID
> prefixes
>             of this Map-Reply has not enabled LISP-SEC.
>
>
> I think the fifth paragraph of Section 6.4 is missing a period or
> something.  I
> found it hard to parse toward the end.
>
>
>
>
>
>    The ITR-OTK is wrapped with the algorithm specified by the OTK
>    Wrapping ID field.  See Section 6.5 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27#section-6.5> for further details on OTK
>    encryption.  If the NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 algorithm (see Section 8.4 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27#section-8.4>) is
>    selected, and no other encryption mechanism (e.g.  DTLS) is enabled
>    in the path between the ITR and the Map-Resolver, the Map-Request
>    MUST be dropped, and an appropriate log action SHOULD be taken.
>    Implementations may include mechanisms (which are beyond the scope of
>    this document) to avoid log resource exhaustion attacks.
>
>
>
> Two commas and a period were missing…. Does it read better?
>
> Ciao
>
> L.
>
>