Re: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 05 June 2019 20:51 UTC
Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7825E12013B; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 WMVTB8nuOjQR; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (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 896031200B5; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x55KpPrR029051; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:51:25 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu x55KpPrR029051
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1559767886; bh=VCVDG6GTGjV3/vmyDSSO14TT+4GAfB+Y0CsLT5TnZ84=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OhB4EsB0KELoOHSEE0/Djzd37LK9Qv9DaOeJc/QnlMbrUqwAWBKCK8ZVVunOjPXaH LGD15zGbgNwMZsi1P0p306Px216IiC6p0MpDj85/0VGs50p9vMk6yatyRDMqqXwcdh /JORcFywTdsld8jnrGcu1y6vWVXbucrLmIoZG9ck=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x55KpKV0048883; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:51:20 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:51:20 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "uma.chunduri@huawei.com" <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVC1LykCcUyZN7sUKQlUP58RIGYqZs5BYAgCDFyfA=
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 20:51:19 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B338537B@marathon>
References: <155794787548.30479.12106710565768543060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BYAPR11MB3638F34879DCBA41EAEC6125C1090@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB3638F34879DCBA41EAEC6125C1090@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/7bDtYFKoE59xdVb-WCwmtfUEJ-o>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 20:51:36 -0000
Hi Les! > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:22 PM > To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org; Christian Hopps > <chopps@chopps.org>; uma.chunduri@huawei.com; > aretana.ietf@gmail.com; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- > extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Roman - > > Thanx for the review. > > Responses inline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw via > > Datatracker > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:18 PM > > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org; Christian > > Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; uma.chunduri@huawei.com; > > aretana.ietf@gmail.com; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- > > extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-exten > > sions/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I need a bit of help understanding how to read the Security > > Considerations text – threats are identified but how they are > > mitigated seems implicit. The text, “In general the same types of > > attacks … However, the latter will be more difficult to detect …”, > > alludes to a similar threat without a reference and seems to suggest > > it will be worse in the deployed environment of this extension. > > > [Les:] The point being made here is that when MPLS is in use the destinations > affected by inappropriate/malicious use of a label cannot be directly > identified as in the case of IP/IPv6 forwarding entries - they require further > investigation to determine. > But the result is the same - traffic is misrouted. > > > The next paragraph, “Existing security extensions … [RFC5304] and > > [RFC5310] apply …” states that [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] also apply. > > What does apply mean here – should they be used? Do they mitigate > > what’s described in the previous paragraph? > > [Les:] The two paragraphs are not directly related. RFC5304/RFC5310 define > the use of MD5/Cryptographic authentication for IS-IS. Use of these > extensions is prudent to protect all IS-IS advertisements. Referencing these > RFCs is standard content for the Security section of almost any IS-IS > extension. I was connecting those two paragraphs. I now understand and it is clear in re-reading. Thanks for this explanation. I'll clear the discuss. > Les > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Section 2.3. Typo. s/advertsied/advertised/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
- [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-i… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-i… Roman Danyliw