Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

> On May 27, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I do not disagree. Are there areas beyond what’s already in the Security
>> considerations that require specific focus?
> 
> I think I only have the points I mentioned above (lack of clarity
> regarding protecting the original payload, and clear rhetoric).

OK, let’s make sure we have a way forward for both of them.

>>> That reevaluation will
>>> include security/privacy issues for the original payload as well as the
>>> classification and encapsulation data added by the SFC protocol(s).
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes — which is what the doc already says.
> 
> Just to ensure we're getting through to each other, do you mind pointing
> to the specific text that you have in mind that is supposed to already
> say this?
> 

What changes the flow of data in the network (i.e., direct user traffic to the ‘remote machine’ (as you called it) is the overlay — that is why in the “Service Overlay” section of the Security Considerations we have:

        and can also include authenticity and integrity checking, and/or
        confidentiality provisions.

The use of the SFC Encapsulation is for SFP encapsulation and metadata sharing.

>> “Reevaluated” is significantly better, of course. Here’s another proposal:
>> 
>> "The architecture described here is different from the current model, and
>> moving to the new model could lead to different security arrangements and
>> modeling. In the SFC architecture, a relatively static topologically-dependent
>> deployment model is replaced with the chaining of sets of service functions.
>> This can change the flow of data through the network, and the security and
>> privacy considerations of the protocol and deployment will need to be
>> reevaluated in light of the model.”
> 
> I might add in "new" or "chained" before the very last "model", but this
> seems to catch the sentiment I was going for.

Either ‘chain’ or ‘new’ univocally disambiguates ‘model’ — sure.

> The idea would be to insert
> this as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of section 6?
> 

Yes, or as the first paragraph of Section 6, as a preamble to the section. Either.

Thank you,

— Carlos.

> Thank you,
> 
> Ben