Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 29 January 2015 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43DD1A7005; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 S6Q_Ln6baBPU; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514A41A7004; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0TJo3ng025070; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:50:03 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (194-166-224-30.adsl.highway.telekom.at [194.166.224.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0TJo1qx025057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:50:02 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Vincent Roca'" <vincent.roca@inria.fr>, "'IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao@tools.ietf.org>
References: <53F9995B-6F70-49D2-ABA1-AD293C185121@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <53F9995B-6F70-49D2-ABA1-AD293C185121@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:50:00 -0000
Message-ID: <00f101d03bfc$c5708f30$5051ad90$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIBcNoYGZtvoWVneyalyEOIazxr5Jx1Fljw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21292.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.628-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.628-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: HXSqh3WYKfunykMun0J1wvHkpkyUphL9Ud7Bjfo+5jQ5CCUkHUNu7iTC VwyY5KnU9yVWMX78LNQbyBySNUwX/qfvoMzwlFfiF6z9HGHKwNsyGiaSs0n67M1BXOF9hjmy48f E6PIFskDswJyg33osayJaS+qP0e8yrE+g6/fP28kmZusHWPhfCnN3sLsG0mhuh/BqejSDeoK8xJ mJORcY9PIdglT1fbSdbKDjm1aK3I3EQS2ecfkpFyVypP66BP0QfS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8M894 3oc3p3sq7rFUcuGp/EgBwKKRHe+r1x3Klt/+HKxUpJLpaHrWyiUOTGH9lzUggEnFQ04RFTIt9f1 B/BFlEo=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/4Cyb4-3BtHRutM54Dri0IIMwwCc>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:50:07 -0000

Thanks Vincent. Good nits.
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Roca
> Sent: 29 January 2015 19:36
> To: IESG; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: Vincent Roca
> Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-02
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 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 comments.
> 
> Summary: ready
> 
> This document specifies a new Router Alert Option Value for IPv6, to be used
> by MPLS OAM tools in IPv6 environments.
> It does not introduce any new mechanism that is likely to create security
> threats. Additionally, RFC 6398 discusses the security aspects of IP Router
> Alert in detail. The Security Considerations section of the present document
> refers to this (and related RFCs) for security aspects which I think is
appropriate.
> 
> 
> Non-Security comments:
> 
> ** The Introduction uses several terms that appear to me synonymous, namely:
>        generic Option Value
>        generic IPV6 Router Alert code point
>        Value field in the Router Alert Option
>        IPv6 Router Alert Option Value
> And later in Section 3:
>        option value            (i.e., without any upper case letter)
> Or in Section 6:
>        defines a new code point (value TBD1)
> It's worth to harmonize them.
> 
> ** Section 5: there's probably a missing word in:
>        "...examine the packet the MPLS OAM purpose."