Re: [manet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2019 9:43 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: manet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension@ietf.org;
> manet-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [manet] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-
> multi-hop-extension-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi,
> 	Please see below.
> 
> On 5/1/19 4:40 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-06: 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-manet-dlep-multi-hop-exten
> > sion/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This extension (much like draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension) seems
> > to provide a mechanism to direct a modem to drop traffic in an
> > unauthenticated fashion -- for directly connected networks via the
> > terminate action; and for multi-hop networks via the suppress action.
> >
> > For example, per the mobile scenario in Section 4 of RFC8175, a
> > compromised laptop in the switch could use this extension instruct the
> > modem to drop packets without authentication.
> >
> > I saw in Warren’s comment ballet on
> > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension
> > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extensio
> > n/ballot/)
> > that
> >
> > “Lou will add:
> >   Implementations of the extension defined in this document MUST
> support
> >    configuration of TLS usage, as describe in <xref target="RFC8175"/>,
> >    in order to protect configurations where injection attacks are
> >    possible, i.e., when the link between a modem and router is not
> >    otherwise protected.”
> >
> > I believe the same caveat is needed in this draft as they are enabling
> > similar behavior.  Please correct me if I’m conflating the
> > capabilities of this extension with the pause extension.
> >
> 
> On one hand I think it is reasonable to have the security sections match
> between the two.  On the other, I think it really seems this IESG is unhappy
> with the language  approved for 8175.  Given this, I'll go ahead and add the
> requested test.

Thanks.

> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > A few questions and an editorial nit.
> >
> > (1) Section 1.  Editorial.  There is a sentence fragment “example
> > using.” which likely needs to be removed.
> >
> > (2) Section 2.  Per “The use of the Multi-Hop Forwarding Extension
> > SHOULD be configurable”, what is meant by configurable?
> >
> > (3) Section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.  The Terminate and Direct Connection
> > messages are not supposed to be (MUST NO) be sent in a Session Update
> > Message.  How should the modem behave if it receives one anyway?
> >
> 
> base DLEP 8175 resets a session on any type of parsing error. I'm personally
> not a fan of this, but it *is* what RFC8175 says...

Understood.  Thanks for the clarity.

Roman

> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > manet mailing list
> > manet@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >