Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-02

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Tue, 26 April 2016 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC96C12D0F2; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 d-BBPNwvc7Ja; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B43120727; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6559; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1461706373; x=1462915973; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=DtdJsFZC3nUil+JIGs7vZxB5oCUJS4WBq+WxxSlAmAw=; b=OxvNzmvLocWI9h716GMsQDDLTuUu1uBiIXcRC8KA9ZcDVNd287XcBvH6 Gc7+RPVuS0n7DVm/l2X53ar5CZVgXLQ2HAeJ7HnOefXUXmZPyuN3G33U9 F8XjIJA0+oEcuhKrv0nug/kAqkS/DX9X68yh6OZ1Rf0ER2GUyO98PLjul M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DhAgCV3R9X/5tdJa1egmxMgVAGtQWCZ?= =?us-ascii?q?IIPDoF0hg8CgUA4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RBAQEBAwEjVgULAgEIEgYqAgIyFw4CBA4?= =?us-ascii?q?FDogUCLNBkQ4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQENCIYhgXUIgk6HP4JWBZMfh?= =?us-ascii?q?HEBgyeBZ4kIgWeETYhdjy8BHgFDggUbgUtsiC9/AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,538,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="266405210"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Apr 2016 21:32:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (xch-rtp-016.cisco.com [64.101.220.156]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3QLWqgA026625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:32:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-016.cisco.com (64.101.220.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:32:51 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:32:51 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Thread-Topic: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-02
Thread-Index: AQHRn7noe7HtbKiJG0u+NZfEBeLzNZ+ckuUAgAAIk4CAAG58gA==
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:32:51 +0000
Message-ID: <F64EB110-8866-44D1-A0CD-261692645597@cisco.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwho5C8JzQ92Nk4mQjjhwKG0gvus=xH5G0e6s9smEg=DNg@mail.gmail.com> <01160F37-0C73-42CE-AA8C-A09F876080A8@cisco.com> <CAMm+Lwhtuopf_yhhyWPfY0mDoU8bwt4HMb0OywD_9c7g5W+K0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwhtuopf_yhhyWPfY0mDoU8bwt4HMb0OywD_9c7g5W+K0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.182.239]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5632678-049B-439B-95FC-3CEB28DF1B99"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-A7er26Ws95rpLVIp9bGXpdHQac>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv.all@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:32:55 -0000

Phillip,

Please find below one follow-up, the rest of the message snipped out for clarity

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
>> In re-reading the Security Considerations section (thanks again for the review), I do believe there is an area of improvement: from RFC 5885, since these PWs specify single-hop adjacencies, the document ought to specify the use of GTSM for the IP/UDP encapsulations.
>> 
>> I’ll be happy to add that in. Please let me know if you have any concerns with it.
> 
> For an infrastructure of this scale, the security architecture should
> really be described in a separate document and at length.

I understand what you write, but you are answering a different question.

In a separate note you said:

> rather than action on this particular draft.

Here, I was only asking if you have concerns with one specific improvement that we can add to the Security Considerations of this document.

Thanks!

— Carlos.