[Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-28: 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-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 5.

   Write
   operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper
   protection can have a negative effect on network operations.  There
   are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

      /ospf:ospf/extended-lsa-support
      /ospf:ospf/ospf:areas/ospf:area/extended-lsa-support
      The ability to disable OSPFv3 Extended LSA support can result in a
      denial of service.

Isn’t it more than just denial of service?  In certain environments wouldn’t
the ability to modify OSPF Extended LSA configurations enable an attacker to:
modify network topologies to enable select traffic to avoid inspection or
treatment by security controls; route traffic in a way that it would be subject
to inspect/modification by an adversary node; or gain access to otherwise
segregated parts of the network.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As an editorial note, I would have benefit from some narrative prose on the data model.