Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-08

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 10 February 2020 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@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 91ACF12008D; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 23:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=HiCgev5p; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Bb6BYoa0
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 Er_8eR8SHeLJ; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 23:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD15120077; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 23:36:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10881; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1581320168; x=1582529768; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=7owi2CIRJEyythgZZkCUeyh7HsCE7b4ZTzF1IsmBoSQ=; b=HiCgev5pJTCGWR2baMtR7nsEmH+Cezp8gcsaH6IuGDELphz2SCSbc1iZ 6jR2Fw5wgAunUOZ2Kkh7a8Pr2iTqQJNfQ19cjRexax0yAgmg2WgLxZhOu dqIUlWhZoxB50ORKdKU8XP7C31rDJrt6IfhnM7AVignYKNU5hs5gHKA34 I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:L77dThRxY+2GaSv1RzOh0FBWbtpsv++ubAcI9poqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBNfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH15g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOjQmHNlIWUV513q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BLEACFB0Fe/4oNJK1mHAEBAQEBBwEBEQEEBAEBgXuBJS9QBWxYIAQLKodbA4p/TpU1DIRigUKBEANUCQEBAQwBASUIAgEBhEACgkQkOBMCAw0BAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIVnAgQSGxMBATgPAgEIRjIlAQEEARoagwWBfU0DLgECDKFzAoE5iGKCJ4J/AQEFhTYYggwDBoE4hR+EO4JJGoFBP4FYgkw+gmQBAQIBgSwBARIBIyuDFYIsjUIhiFyJf45IcAqCOodMgiyMb4JIiBGLb4RHjmSIbJI5AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpImdxcBWDJ1AYDY4dCRqDUIUUhT90AoEniw2CMgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,424,1574121600"; d="scan'208,217";a="447625896"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 Feb 2020 07:36:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01A7a5Ej020328 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:36:06 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 01:36:05 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 02:36:04 -0500
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 01:36:04 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=NOb4dHzzpwBo2tP3tW5P/+Dj8MSzT0gNDmXLQLS+/wyikKos2uHMIHcDyrsLM6cPw67jZpFzvfpCgq+P4jBGuD5MihZi5mpXz/xDtjYKStzZ2TlK2HHxoIpj47ytuVz43TIDRAyYGeUnQKLVoozHkNa2T0iutWfHqc3HBtlS29QPN/rs9l+rPDA0bPNCWWM+KbdzygVsk9kdYOe2/37FTicx+K1Abka4t99Bm0Vlaq2AL7hiA5zuRXMyyoharH5sQz4Pzz2w1UlYYN6X0uQxq24g4QjTWqOLuRqniRuQp+qj7u15jG4xizAEvM/eUi4Cd0Of8Iyf+Gk4hV1n5EWWnw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Ir5U6AAxB2THXu2qHAuCP/ffQYj60skcSgfSRhRLw+Q=; b=StmAPnOAiNfIv7GZrV1We/5a5xM1Do5KQLLSe13b2eeC/jUq8tivDSLegagktadpue+D5CJhlrjOAum1L/i4PHD2cCAxvrRpc4ah5tJ9tANgBHG89vKAVnKczw2n+G2eMoopax+6w10gzilnCsYZR1AQ3WUPvFr4tW+t5yzhibE27sSmuRHkzvLyWuVjTM/qRsX2YiVkGPlqBR+VCRK6wi6K2fpxZ9PxHV0MrOMBhKRe6NtCaQyEh78YGp8utymTYwWdmV7s0Y7laiqlJ/jBgG/i3kK72589HwOGAD1ZpGbRQExaiE3UedQs53VHmkWX9nKTKlpYmyFJOwNUQbcYkw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Ir5U6AAxB2THXu2qHAuCP/ffQYj60skcSgfSRhRLw+Q=; b=Bb6BYoa0TZNfbspboG6dcSJ9tXRSKu3OOdJf9Up3ehajTpG0oYhTnRfgiEyhwbUYGZNXkgQnbDy6ZDgvtuAFLaCG4PPDqHra8qbwqa1z0yM1qjcjEC98E+yTNdQAhkJIXiglxHHCPpMl2mxKNJqj3ALHW1gd1NTBwVlJ1JJtOxQ=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB3551.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2707.24; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:36:03 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fd76:1534:4f9a:452a]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fd76:1534:4f9a:452a%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2707.030; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:36:03 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-08
Thread-Index: AdXalCLFRlrAAOY/RCW/KaF9W1FCvAFSSLMw
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:35:46 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:04:24 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB35652608BABFC6B1EB0B1A9FD8190@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY4PR1601MB1254AAB128CD71BB283BDA72EA000@CY4PR1601MB1254.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR1601MB1254AAB128CD71BB283BDA72EA000@CY4PR1601MB1254.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a01:cb1d:4ec:2200:21c7:b739:ec9c:f622]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b9ce06a2-9bd0-4c13-f716-08d7adfbe201
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3551:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB35511D479D712C31D8BB2077D8190@MN2PR11MB3551.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 03094A4065
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(199004)(189003)(2906002)(478600001)(9686003)(55016002)(7696005)(71200400001)(6666004)(33656002)(86362001)(76116006)(316002)(66476007)(66946007)(64756008)(66446008)(66556008)(5660300002)(81166006)(966005)(52536014)(8936002)(110136005)(6506007)(81156014)(8676002)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3551; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 4oQY18lPkQA+XROr6PBjo6ZixPwyBq483cyzY6c8vO/a123xWjQpcMwNQRkwKjsFeYvXjCYDQ3R4epleV/7rfDBcGZ7pwTCPLcRsltzLb+ZGcMdSXI42zrC5vfdg0B+SK3E2Azi2+653p/ufaqGGzVykqE7FNYvzvSSGogoJvO4NGR01bje9KqiIkl4C9WSrWVQROYRIF7n4tHz4Gnpr/A==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB35652608BABFC6B1EB0B1A9FD8190MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b9ce06a2-9bd0-4c13-f716-08d7adfbe201
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Feb 2020 07:36:03.5671 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pKFFVkSAmKIzMRbIo4od9xjSuw6oBe7o5ij9aHDd3+uK9v5ERl+fbb0SyaxDRDeQdAwKvW2wsIF7H+/JylKGQQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3551
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/5TCIVwYZnoIsUligiMkYZWbpUoE>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:36:10 -0000

Hello Tiru;

Many thanks for your review!

Please see below

> [1] It is not clear to me how the Security sections of I-D.ietf-core-cocoa apply to this specification ?

The specification depends on a Retransmission TimeOut (RTO) estimation that can be attacked. Adding the reference to cocoa was a earlier review comment that we got. Cocoa computes an RTO in a similar type of network. I agreed that the recommendation made sense but still, I can probably dig that email and start a thread with the reviewer if you think it is irrelevant.

> [2] The security considerations section discusses I-D.ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly but that document does not discuss any security considerations yet.

Correct. When it does I hope it describes the issue that this specification discusses. In any fashion we use it to explain a difference: "here's a traditional drawback of fragments and here's why it does not hurt us", as opposed to an inheritance.
If you think that the text is not helpful, we can open another thread on that.


> [3] It is not clear how the DoS attack of bogus first fragments is handled and other attacks discussed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17#section-3.7 are tackled ?

They are not, apart from whatever protection we get from the requirement in L2 security (we are talking about an homogeneous mesh). This section is highly relevant. This is all detailed in section 7 of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment that this specification inherits.

> [4] How does the document align with the recommendations given in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17#section-6 ?

Section 6 says that IP fragmentation should be avoided by new protocols. This Is not IP fragmentation, it is lower layer. We cannot avoid it if we are to support IPv6 that has a MIN MTU of 1280 bytes and the 6LoWPAN MTU is lower than that, see RFC 4944.

Please let me know if you have a recommendation for a change, I saw questions but not real hiunt on how to act on them.

Many thanks again!

Pascal