Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-06

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

Sowmya:


Hi!

Sorry for being so picky, but the Security section is not there yet.

The new text you added is this:

   ...There is the risk of a malicious node injecting an
   incorrect Explicit RPF vector stack.  Since the draft does not have a
   feedback mechanism to the end nodes that are injecting the Explicit
   RPF vector as to whether the injected path was used or an alternate
   path was used due to conflict resolution on an upstream node, it is
   upto the mechanisms that produced the Explicit RPF vector to ensure
   that the the PIM tree is built correctly.


If I was the security AD, I would then ask you to build in that feedback
mechanism. :-(

The risks that I see are:
- injecting a incorrect stack (as you mentioned above),
- topology changes resulting in nodes that don't support this in the path
- changes in features/support at the nodes (maybe as a result of a crash..)

...there might be others.  Note that 2 of those risks may still occur even
if the stack was correct -- but not having that feedback mechanism may
results in issues (lost traffic, loops, etc.) a long time after the stacks
were first injected.

Because the programming of the network is external, what about
authentication and authorization?

Maybe I'm becoming too paranoid, but those are the types of things I'm
expecting in the Security considerations.  Maybe some text like this:

"The creation of the Explicit RPF Vector list is outside the scope of this
document.  It is then expected that the mechanisms used create a correct
list: one that describes a path for the Join message to be propagated
without looping, that considers only nodes that support the mechanism
defined in this document, etc..  [IOW, define what "correct" is.]  The
network administrator should take special care in strictly verifying the
authentication and authorization of and potential protocol/mechanism used
to program the network.  Given that even if the path is correct, the
network topology (for example) can change over time, it is recommended
that the administrator strictly monitor the network in order to react to
any events that may require the instantiation of a new list.."


Please include something like that and upload the new version (after
Sunday) and then I'll start the IETF Last Call.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


On 10/28/15, 2:17 PM, "Sowmya Krishnaswamy (sowkrish)"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Attaching the latest XML.
>________________________________________
>From: Alvaro Retana (aretana)
>Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:18 PM
>To: Sowmya Krishnaswamy (sowkrish)
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-06
>
>Hi!
>
>You attached the old version.
>
>Alvaro.
>
>Thumb-typed and autocorrected..
>
>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Sowmya Krishnaswamy (sowkrish)
>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Please review the Security section and let us know if it's ok.