[secdir] review of draft-saucez-lisp-impact-04.txt

"Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 13 October 2015 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4401B2F66; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JYiUhum4X5I; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF2AD1B2F74; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1Zlpqt-0002TA-Cy; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:02:11 -0600
Received: from [] (helo=sylvester.rhmr.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1Zlpqm-0006rH-3S; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:02:11 -0600
Received: from sylvester.rhmr.com (localhost []) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t9D31X40016244; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:01:33 -0600
Received: (from hilarie@localhost) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id t9D31WfT016243; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:01:32 -0600
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:01:32 -0600
Message-Id: <201510130301.t9D31WfT016243@sylvester.rhmr.com>
From: "Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org
X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+tniCCKVqhbkgDbNKHbBtc
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hilarie@purplestreak.com
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Combo: ******;iesg@ietf.org
X-Spam-Timing: total 317 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.8 (1.2%), b_tie_ro: 2.8 (0.9%), parse: 0.84 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 3.7 (1.2%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.20 (0.4%), tests_pri_-1000: 2.4 (0.8%), tests_pri_-950: 1.28 (0.4%), tests_pri_-900: 1.05 (0.3%), tests_pri_-400: 16 (5.2%), check_bayes: 15 (4.8%), b_tokenize: 4.0 (1.2%), b_tok_get_all: 4.5 (1.4%), b_comp_prob: 1.77 (0.6%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.8 (0.9%), b_finish: 0.65 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 282 (88.9%), tests_pri_500: 3.3 (1.0%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%)
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:00:52 -0600)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/2jqB00BWV26KjuDyN6SKHHdqVf8>
Cc: draft-saucez-lisp-impact@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] review of draft-saucez-lisp-impact-04.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>
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, 13 Oct 2015 03:02:16 -0000

Secdir review of LISP Impact

Do not be alarmed.  I have reviewed this document as part of the
security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and
WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call

A new way of handling routing information has been defined in IETF
documents about the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP).
The draft under discussion here elaborates on the possible
consequences of widespread use of LISP.

The draft punts on security considerations and refers to previous
documents describing threats to LISP and how LISP uses cryptography
for protecting the integrity of its messages.

It seems to me that if the purported impact of LISP is to "scale the
Internet", then its impact on security should be a major part of the
equation.  Will it make routing information more or less vulnerable
malicious manipulation?  How will it affect the stability of a network
that is under constant threat of attack?

I don't feel that the draft can achieve its purpose without addressing


PS. I was very disappointed to realize that this was not a draft
about my favorite programming language.