Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 24 September 2015 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C41A1A6FE9; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 fgVmuJ3V095M; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A3DF1A3BA2; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=49643; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443119154; x=1444328754; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=VwZP5gPOLUIqykN6ZSz653LVKtk/5lGNMoJU6DdfkHM=; b=Hj3R9Q07rMdYjm0rg1bP1V3efnq7U/G7bqJ1PvAWbSXm/hsqYTBbOZ2W YkydDHcnnTY7qCnExHt/0T1x1eJyxbnIWb3ipD/pe+4mGt6J7hIJwwUS8 G2M1VLgEBgUOForebfkGCL6azn8tzzragIDmySRP5sueVT76S2GeI7JuA g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOAgBkPwRW/4gNJK1dgldNgT0GgyS6GQENh3MCHIEuOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEJAEBAQQjRBIQAgEIDgMDAQEBIQEGAwICAh8RFAkIAgQOBYgZAxK3Zo8mDYR9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4twglCBZSEmEQYBAoJngUMFkj6DKQGLG4FvgU+ENo1jh0IfAQFChAFxiCVCgQUBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,582,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217";a="190928678"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Sep 2015 18:25:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (xch-aln-020.cisco.com [173.36.7.30]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8OIPrjS023970 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:25:53 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:25:52 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (173.37.183.75) by xch-aln-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:25:52 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.127]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:25:52 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
Thread-Index: AQHQ9Wi9kAg4Y2m6EUyUor8EP2sEbJ5JO10A///E8ACAAvqjtoAAVMWAgAAC74CAAAFegP//vs+A
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:25:52 +0000
Message-ID: <D229B822.32B91%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdCDNrk+Hn0SkSx1LeRfSUHr+LLSJ8LR-k5ui6WUm0h3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rfOa9M8adSxocHka0wYL7wZbUP94ujGC9CW16QOiSBEfA@mail.gmail.com> <D2272216.30E2B%acee@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB13813D6AF5B739F98D9383E9D5430@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <ABA2F0CE-A287-4F5D-963F-963292AEAEFD@gredler.at> <CAG4d1rdCPKTQE+bpXv3H_JPDe=pHJk4AD5YdUwDLpcPcOKCkUg@mail.gmail.com> <A66D8806-EBA6-4ED8-A7A6-E8E248657BE8@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rc-tzxLtk5Ti0DJDxpgC=X9T=hUYjS-51VF_PSTCe67ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rc-tzxLtk5Ti0DJDxpgC=X9T=hUYjS-51VF_PSTCe67ww@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.24]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D229B82232B91aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/n2rkCyECMcgRy-G6mzA2RIdIjbg>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:26:02 -0000


From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 2:19 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at<mailto:hannes@gredler.at>>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net<mailto:shraddha@juniper.net>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04

Hi Acee,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Alia, Hannes,

On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:03 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hannes,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at<mailto:hannes@gredler.at>> wrote:
i can be moved to contributors list as well if it helps.

Thanks - that would get us to 5 authors, which is the RFC Editor limit.

Shraddha already moved one Juniper author to the contributors list. Perhaps, we could do a swap in the spirit of getting more new people involved.

Whatever works between the WG chairs and the authors.

Apologies - I miscounted - there were 7 originally.  Authors should discuss.

Thanks,
Acee


Practically, having watched through many of these AUTH48 periods - they really
drag on with lots of authors.

Actually, my experience has been that BIS documents where the original authors are no longer following the IETF are the toughest. Greater than five authors has not been a problem for OSPF if they are all actively contributing and engaged (although I have had to contact one particular former colleague of yours and current colleague of mine via alternate channels ;^)

Yup - BIS documents are hard.  Responsiveness depends on the people.  Of course, those involved in OSPF
are naturally more responsive;-)

Regards,
Alia


Thanks,
Acee




Thanks,
Alia


On 24.09.2015, at 19:27, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net<mailto:shraddha@juniper.net>> wrote:

Alia,

Thank you very much for the review and comments.
I have updated the draft and draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-05 is posted.

Authors list has been reduced to 6 and one author moved to contributor’s list.
Here is the list of other comments and resolutions

1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to
   express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers
   node properties conveyed by tags."

   What is the subject that "to express and act upon"?  Is it a router?
   Please clean up.
<Shraddha>changed  to
“The node-tags can be used to express and apply locally-defined
network policies which is a very useful operational capability.”


2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list."  Perhaps
   "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer?
<Shraddha>Changed to
“The administrative tag list within the TLV SHOULD be considered
an unordered list.”


3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of"  should be
   "[RFC7490] defines a method of"
<Shraddha> Updated

4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional
   information to an IGP snooper.  It would be useful to have some thoughts
   about that.
<Shraddha>
Node admin tags may be used by operators to indicate geographical location or other
sensitive information.
As indicated in <xref target="RFC2328"/> and <xref target="RFC5340"/> OSPF authentication
mechanisms do not provide  confidentiality and the information carried in node admin tags could be leaked to an IGP
snooper.

5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that
   was mentioned in Sec 3.1

<Shraddha> Updated

Rgds
Shraddha


From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:01 AM
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04

Thanks Alias - Speaking as Document Shepherd…

Authors,

Please let me know if you require any assistance - these all seem like good comments.

From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 3:02 PM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04



On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:
As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-04
before requesting IETF Last Call.

First, I'd like to thank the working group and Shraddha, Harish, Hannes, Rob,
Anton, Zhenbin, and Bruno for their hard work on the draft.  However, this short
draft has 7 authors, which is a couple over the author limit for RFCs.  Experience
has shown that it takes much longer to process a draft through AUTH48 and the
other steps necessary (responsiveness to comments, agreement, etc) with a large
number of authors.  While I am willing to be persuaded - on or off list - that all 7
of the current authors are actively editing, I would prefer that a smaller number be
selected as the active editors.

In some cases, a draft represents a multi-vendor effort requiring a significant commitment from more than 5 authors and I’d specifically request a deviation from the author limit. I don’t see this to be the case with this draft.



While that discussion is ongoing, here are my technical comments.  In general,
the draft is in good shape but could use some English grammar editing; I have not
tried to indicate all the places where "the" is missing, for instance.

1) In the abstract: "This optional operational capability allows to
   express and act upon locally-defined network policy which considers
   node properties conveyed by tags."

   What is the subject that "to express and act upon"?  Is it a router?
   Please clean up.

2) In Sec 3.2: "The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered list."  Perhaps
   "the value contents of the TLV" or something that makes it clearer?

3) In Sec 4.3: " [RFC7490] proposed method of"  should be
   "[RFC7490] defines a method of"

4) In Sec 5, I'm fairly certain that admin tags can leak additional
   information to an IGP snooper.  It would be useful to have some thoughts
   about that.

When you include this, be sure and point out the the attacker would also require knowledge of the policies corresponding to the tags. I’d also point out that the policies and advertised tags are local to the OSPF routing domain as is done in RFC 5530.

Thanks,
Acee


5) In IANA considerations, please duplicated the suggested value (10) that
   was mentioned in Sec 3.1

Thanks again for the hard work.  The sooner we resolve whom the editors are,
the sooner this draft can proceed.  Ideally, if updated by Thursday, it could enter
IETF Last Call and make the IESG telechat on Oct 17.

Oct 15 that is.


Regards,
Alia