Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sun, 17 September 2017 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 280A2132403; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 00:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QKZTN_9vcRvg; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 00:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 2A0681320B5; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 00:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1dtUM0-0003uJ-QD; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 07:51:01 +0000
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:50:57 +0900
Message-ID: <m2shfl4vby.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-sfc-nsh.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-nsh.all@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <51afed5d-f1c7-00ef-3c6e-71035d315e8d@huitema.net>
References: <2ad0274f-3385-136d-794b-082192393ebf@huitema.net> <C53DE35A-4043-46A5-8525-FF273F205971@cisco.com> <3dca9d3d-de38-602c-222f-e111ae7d16a0@huitema.net> <C0C0D8D1-0D23-4AC4-94B1-9F10C6D93A46@cisco.com> <51afed5d-f1c7-00ef-3c6e-71035d315e8d@huitema.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/0Jt-Eb0dr7QbO5-2Nrc287EcNMU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 07:51:06 -0000

> 1) Encrypt the data in transit, using IPSEC or similar;

like this is gonna happen.  this is the secdir pacifier.

> That's not a bad posture, but I wish that you were explicit about the
> threats. I am somewhat concerned that the "administrative domain"
> approach leads to complacency, as in "my domain is secure, I am only
> concerned with external leakage".

there is common talk about pushing some services in a chain to the
cloud, aka other people's computers.

randy