Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 03:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246301B5B42; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 S_9qZV_QIMtB; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81DEE1B5B2B; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t8U3srB1095391 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:54:54 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Mach Chen" <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:54:52 -0500
Message-ID: <805809F3-F1F9-4ED2-9EB9-C63D93A9EE0D@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B606E42@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <20150929203651.6096.81259.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B606E42@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/ymano1Oc1ZEFRVtcRBggjAr7fRY>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rcallon@juniper.net" <rcallon@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:54:59 -0000

On 29 Sep 2015, at 21:20, Mach Chen wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> The following text is to resolve Kathleen's DISCUSS, hope this also 
> resolves your comments.
>

Yes it does, thanks!

> Those security considerations specified in RFC4379 and RFC7110 apply 
> for this document.
> In addition, this document introduces the Reply Mode Order TLV. It 
> provides a new way for an unauthorized source to gather more network 
> information, especially the potential return path(s) information of an 
> LSP. To protect against unauthorized sources using MPLS echo request 
> messages with the Reply Mode Order TLV to obtain network information, 
> similar to RFC4379, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a 
> means of checking the source addresses of MPLS echo request messages 
> against an access list before accepting the message.
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:37 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.shepherd@ietf.org;
>> mpls-chairs@ietf.org; 
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple.ad@ietf.org; 
>> rcallon@juniper.net
>> Subject: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-04: No Objection
>>
>> 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-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The security considerations say "no further considerations required"
>> without further explanation. While I don't doubt that is true (except 
>> for those
>> mentioned in Kathleen's DISCUSS), it would be helpful to mention the 
>> new
>> protocol elements and procedures added, and why the wg believes they 
>> don't
>> add any considerations beyond those in the referenced drafts.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls