Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Tue, 14 December 2010 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC0E3A6FB6; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:05:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DNMomtGCJQl1; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:05:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD323A6FB1; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTQeWI2ERhf8cgx5efC5imKjabrj1oyQP@postini.com; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:07:03 PST
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:04:26 -0800
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::8002:d3e7:4146:af5f]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:04:26 -0500
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, "draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:04:25 -0500
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
Thread-Index: Acubpr/14Cwlsd7NSeGL8pAU0+7LHwAAaimQ
Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B02F2A46AC@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <001201cb9b59$acd02d70$06708850$@net> <4D07926A.9030007@ieca.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D07926A.9030007@ieca.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:36:03 -0800
Cc: "opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:05:23 -0000

Authors,

I think that we can correct this problem with an RFC editors note before the telechat on Thursday. Could one of you please provide the updated text?

                                    Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Sean Turner
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:51 AM
> To: Glen Zorn; draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
> 
> I hoping that this was a typo.  I pulled out all the registered RADIUS
> ports from http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers and 1645/1646:
> 
> sightline       1645/tcp  SightLine
> sightline       1645/udp  SightLine
> #                         admin <iana&sightlinesystems.com>
> sa-msg-port     1646/tcp  sa-msg-port
> sa-msg-port     1646/udp  sa-msg-port
> #                         Eric Whitehill <Eric.Whitehill&itt.com>
> 
> 
> radius          1812/tcp    RADIUS
> radius          1812/udp    RADIUS
> #                           [RFC2865]
> radius-acct     1813/tcp    RADIUS Accounting
> radius-acct     1813/udp    RADIUS Accounting
> #                           [RFC2866]
> radsec          2083/tcp   Secure Radius Service
> radsec          2083/udp   Secure Radius Service
> #                          Mike McCauley <mikem&open.com.au> May 2005
> radius-dynauth  3799/tcp   RADIUS Dynamic Authorization
> radius-dynauth  3799/udp   RADIUS Dynamic Authorization
> #                          RFC 3576 - July 2003
> 
> Should 1812 & 1813 be listed or also 2083 & 3799?
> 
> spt
> 
> On 12/14/10 1:39 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Section 3.1 says:
> >
> >     o  Permit RADIUS authentication and accounting replies from
> RADIUS
> >        servers 198.51.100.9, 198.51.100.10, 2001:DB8:100::9, and
> 2001:
> >        DB8:100::10 that are listening on UDP ports 1645 and 1646.
> Note
> >        that this doesn't account for a server using Internet Assigned
> >        Numbers Authority (IANA) ports 1812 and 1813 for RADIUS.
> >
> > So, in other words, RADIUS traffic on the ports (officially assigned
> for
> > more than ten years now) will be blocked.  This seems like a very
> poor
> > example.
> >
> >
> >
> >