[secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Mon, 08 August 2011 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@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 5BF4B21F884E; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZTNQUq14HcwA; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BA821F8841; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=clonvick@cisco.com; l=1177; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312836760; x=1314046360; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version; bh=ER2mIDbbrPIIYo6NmfFrz+PeqKnpGSjR6KI/YekfhNY=; b=DcqoVjw5a1EuiUgqw6EcQEc1XvA9PSteW9CKwHBB36kiW1g0AiP3hEYj OA0uhYcow5ezUqK37Ss6Q02kBMD2jxvtzZilljdhx0+5ftvEZidMW50JZ MutyAunB6n1+JHuTmiQIZlXInKNhkipKds7ZwuSVKfYEaEUycrsrw/+NB 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,339,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="10981856"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2011 20:52:40 +0000
Received: from sjc-cde-021.cisco.com (sjc-cde-021.cisco.com [171.69.20.56]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78Kqdqw009359; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 20:52:39 GMT
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:52:39 -0700
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.all@tools.ietf.org, Michael McBride <mmcbride@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1108081328200.22397@sjc-cde-021.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 20:52:14 -0000

Hi,

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.

Overall I find the document to be of good quality and I agree that the 
security considerations section is adequate.

While PIM is certainly not my strong suit the document is understandable 
except for the following paragraph from Section 2.1:

    The Local Interface Identifier MUST be non-zero.  The reason for
    this, is that some protocols may want to only optionally refer to an
    Interface using the Interface Identifier Hello option, and use the
    value of 0 to show that it is not referred to.  Note that the value
    of 0 is not a valid ifIndex as defined in [RFC1213].

This seems to be saying that the Local Interface Identifier must not be 0, 
except when some protocol wants to use the Interface Identifier Hello to 
not refer to any actual interface.  Which leaves me confused.

Regards,
Chris