Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Sat, 09 November 2019 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C45A1200DE for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:46:48 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Xnt15XNjBSOu for <opsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 9A119120073 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id p2so10342148wro.2 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 08:46:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=1DrPRHo7KzpI2rXKUj9mLK1439N2tHbx8oUBEY0dYqc=; b=IziryYc9RP4VNVUOZOR5N0HiQyrcB+Rxd05LqVwpax4yuHj8wzPUV0nqEcr3xQvnBF Qai8qEtOmUgR2yqxV+Md+ASh7JKT6i8znyviJIWhxlHUNE/WEikh5RKPm0vGM9NvFBHs f+f/o2J1Q4go6JiBFgEfcNDX7Ru5mGWhTjFZG+aXIeV2mZCh/6QgOWwuSiMcijnT3bRI Fa+dOUrt+x0N0rMuWPe9bSVsUyMCQFyfvQUg6GzE2KiAJuUtfbe4VbozQ/LdSfvUfkWb V8jX25q0ppHyW8QL4C/5B6KR4VzU3HVLA91USF4xEXePFMBpHgZwENfQxW4wJeth5uJf Eztw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=1DrPRHo7KzpI2rXKUj9mLK1439N2tHbx8oUBEY0dYqc=; b=CwpPhES5RzCfG5jSYBuHYnuYY2ubzt3NFiLEAczNbuTCm8JhFOuh3aSxq7a9e7PWrM XQiOmbw/ftsbcHF1OjgMKvdYWqtNF7Vbp4rtJIb9gQR4yKg52iSHCE68fJRElW0rNyYr HkhaSIEBk+6p5tOI980XVQ4uH/71UZgxY2aIVQupwrGiNaEsE4NeF/+kz7L9YUvnoQnr ZtFIt5DtpIxZy6+I019vuDcC9+slxmGK+Jj70q50L+c+6lPKMB7vWRiz4wRvuRNawjhJ rPoOrIg2Q4NUenYFWKb+j0xvRvLfyAyAB5xi94jd+ql0Qibr7p8cNwrG29CNwacGWIV/ I6Dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVw0Va7sUSEIizmrVxODdM8fU3HmwrfxhH72MLNo7zfS5+cotN5 RPdWjaulmDzBSKAOZP8vAzg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzbx1boj5hsZrfIyvvWx+QXES5dKkZLumAJraPu5gXN9euh5UkvCm1qi1y36dVBY+CrUFJijQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9dd0:: with SMTP id q16mr13495536wre.303.1573318002871; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 08:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o18sm12851062wrm.11.2019.11.09.08.46.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Nov 2019 08:46:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E52D2FF2-A02D-4DCC-B82F-21A0BFD8607D@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8B121791-92D4-4A0D-A2F0-FE13FA5B65D5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:46:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <3BB16B9C-9065-466B-9A9A-51C5D314E126@cisco.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
References: <157281820483.13177.8617036261217670675@ietfa.amsl.com> <82AA0F9C-7836-464F-8F19-69FEDB197D53@gmail.com> <1AAA80C6-080B-492D-ABC9-645B9CEFDC99@cisco.com> <CABNhwV3AjvdExSin+etj8tF9Tzt-0VB45Nmb3hwV_REVPmiO8g@mail.gmail.com> <3BB16B9C-9065-466B-9A9A-51C5D314E126@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/jBS-SRQFYofNelZzaYKgyO84m2s>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:46:48 -0000

Eric,

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:57 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Gyan
> 
> Thank you very much for your shepherd write-up, very much appreciated by the authors.
> 
> The list of the ‘obsoleted’ references is intentional indeed to ensure that readers understand that ‘old’ documents have been replaced. The text in the document is clear about the obsolete and current document. So, we do prefer to leave the references like they are as we believe that they make the document more valuable for the reader.

I went back and reread this.  The text:

   2.2.2.  Hop-by-Hop Options Header

   The hop-by-hop options header, when present in an IPv6 packet, forces
   all nodes in the path to inspect this header in the original IPv6
   specification [RFC2460].  This enables denial of service attacks as
   most, if not all, routers cannot process this kind of packets in
   hardware but have to 'punt' this packet for software processing.
   Section 4.3 of the current Internet Standard for IPv6, [RFC8200], has
   taken this attack vector into account and made the processing of hop-
   by-hop options header by intermediate routers optional.

I don’t understand why this is talking about RFC2460 at all.  Seems like it would less confusing to only describe what is in RFC8200.  Nor is “punt” correct way to describe this.   Way too colloquial.

Describing RFC8200 behavior as “optional" is quite right, RFC8200 says:

   ...now expected that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the
      Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so

It’s not optional if configured to do so.  It would be better to use the RFC8200 words.

Lastly the “Original" IPv6 Specification was RFC1883.

Bob

p.s. I agree about the references to RFC 3068 and RFC 3627.







> 
> Regards
> 
> -éric
> 
> From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, 9 November 2019 at 08:28
> To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
> Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>rg>, "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt
> 
> Eric
> 
> I submitted the shepherd write-up.
> 
> I ran the idnits and it found the following obsolete references.  We should clear that up before we publish it.  I can update my comments on that once the draft is updated.
> Checking references for intended status: Informational
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460
>      (Obsoleted by RFC 8200)
> 
>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3068
>      (Obsoleted by RFC 7526)
> 
>   -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3627
>      (Obsoleted by RFC 6547)
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Gyan
> 
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:38 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Hello Gyan,
>> 
>> Thank you for reminding the author to post the 'gist' of the changes with version -21.
>> 
>> Our OPS AD, Warren "Ace" Kumari,  has kindly reviewed our document and has identified more than 70 areas where the text was ambiguous or using bad English... No wonder, none of the 4 authors are English-speaking native: it is a mix of Estonian (Merike who also speaks German and Russian[1]), one of the 22 (?) language of India (KK), German (Enno who also speaks French and Spanish) and French (myself also speaking Dutch) __ __ IETF community is really diverse !
>> 
>> Thank you very much in advance for finalizing the shepherd write-up
>> 
>> -éric
>> 
>> [1] I can be wrong for Merike BTW but she is quadri-lingual
>> 
>> On 04/11/2019, 15:26, "Gyan Mishra" <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>     Hi Eric
>> 
>>     Just checking what the updates are that went in v21 since this document is now ready to be published just pending my Shepard writeup which I plan to finish this week.
>> 
>>     Thank you
>> 
>>     Gyan
>> 
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>     > On Nov 3, 2019, at 4:56 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>     > This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG of the IETF.
>>     >
>>     >        Title           : Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks
>>     >        Authors         : Eric Vyncke
>>     >                          Kiran Kumar Chittimaneni
>>     >                          Merike Kaeo
>>     >                          Enno Rey
>>     >    Filename        : draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt
>>     >    Pages           : 52
>>     >    Date            : 2019-11-03
>>     >
>>     > Abstract:
>>     >   Knowledge and experience on how to operate IPv4 securely is
>>     >   available: whether it is the Internet or an enterprise internal
>>     >   network.  However, IPv6 presents some new security challenges.  RFC
>>     >   4942 describes the security issues in the protocol but network
>>     >   managers also need a more practical, operations-minded document to
>>     >   enumerate advantages and/or disadvantages of certain choices.
>>     >
>>     >   This document analyzes the operational security issues in several
>>     >   places of a network (enterprises, service providers and residential
>>     >   users) and proposes technical and procedural mitigations techniques.
>>     >   Some very specific places of a network such as the Internet of Things
>>     >   are not discussed in this document.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-v6/
>>     >
>>     > There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>     > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21
>>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21
>>     >
>>     > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>     > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>     > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>     >
>>     > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>     > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > OPSEC mailing list
>>     > OPSEC@ietf.org
>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> Gyan S. Mishra
> IT Network Engineering & Technology
> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
> 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
> United States
> Phone: 301 502-1347
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/networking-technologies-consultant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec