Re: [OPSEC] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 10 February 2015 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56821A1EF7; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:50:06 -0800 (PST)
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 1Y49uIEJHZjl; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 BE0F91A1BFB; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A803DA025E; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:50:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF0053E082; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.255.255.68] (64.223.66.169) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:50:00 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DA500C.5070908@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:49:53 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <FFAF547B-0F11-4382-B9B6-4932455F88C9@nominum.com>
References: <20150207194616.20651.30892.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7516AD5C-1152-4020-B050-FA0383B58DBA@viagenie.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502081734120.24776@shell4.bayarea.net> <97C8D14E-D440-4625-8F26-83AF26917CF2@nominum.com> <54D83E7F.3040207@gmail.com> <E478028B-8FFC-47B4-B12D-F0A32227A726@nominum.com> <54D83FCE.4070804@qti.qualcomm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502082137570.16054@shell4.bayarea.net> <96CE509D-3B6E-49B8-98F6-CB8581787D7E@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502090708270.22936@shell4.bayarea.net> <174AA530-3993-4894-BCE7-2AE8818EB35E@nominum.com> <54D8F98D.1030101@si6networks.com> <B3474476-3FA1-484E-BAAD-E7A6474BA11C@nominum.com> <54D90EE5.2060002@gmail.com> <5C9CF492-A795-4023-BB91-28B1B52706E4@nominum.com> <54D92987.2080505@gmail.com> <CDA3CF60-BB2E-4F77-B325-B3057C01FBD1@nominum.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1502091713320.26279@shell4.bayarea.net> <FFC8BDEA-51BB-4D18-8240-F360CD9A7566@nominum.com> <54D98F62.4080508@bogus.com> <ADCFDFED-5EF9-4121-A323-562C1E33C2F5@nominum.com> <54DA500C.5070908@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [64.223.66.169]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/GDLQEzzJe6Fk2J6obgFp1TRJxss>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield@ietf.org>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield.ad@ietf.org>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "opsec-chairs@ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:50:07 -0000

On Feb 10, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> Not sure what the "(as opposed to an extension header)" means. Could you
> elaborate/clarify a bit?

What I'm proposing is that unknown codes can be assumed to be extension headers.   Any known code may be either an extension header or a protocol header, but then it's a known code, so not a problem.   But rereading the text, that parenthetical does seem unnecessary.

Anyway, it sounds like we now have some text to argue about that we might be able to agree on, so I will defer to you on tweaking it--I just wanted to give you a sense of what I had in mind.   The main thing I want to avoid is a recommendation that the basic shield algorithm by default drop unknown extension and transport headers, but I agree that it's good to say what to do if the hardware can't support that fully.