[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.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 AFC12129432; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 3Sqb0hp8jPak; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD2D127B31; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id o67so2322683oib.1; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IgzGD9vXh/9qt5I7ls7R/4SdfS1fXigU0FVS1KZd/qo=; b=j/02zG3UBWIdc/aV8XwLAoWLlYu6GJOSn+Yl/slKIo71JylwDLnwNvBfk/Ua1faTzr ODjNjVg9S+3PPnq+L0Uxi/geMcsTiRX7SAqWKndysjS5WU+E7hGv/DiHNGZMubtxwlRx wanKSdDf/Tl+LZfFv9wkiCDE7IkqL42lP8fE/Edwvd08tV0NLr1iQVKEgrM1INAVLA2z qR2oSwpHfeWhKXJf4GbOowra5xlirRzNKzlJaTbI2IUDLCfPX9TfUTaL4Jjlq00Om8Q+ KcJEJd5v6UAB5vr+VwKtcJldEBDXhb9YsyUHOVF2mLbDGLd+klCpCL149S2EiNbM03cO kGzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IgzGD9vXh/9qt5I7ls7R/4SdfS1fXigU0FVS1KZd/qo=; b=Q/xdqCMmepezhtNlbMz7T3jnAjYxaP0USNi69cuwEOqKlRg2ehVnaQ7FwemdRsDlr8 GzIZgg0l+aiO1z5M3G6IYtLGLse71gLuFmPRADU+twxRZtCQzKDGHEsRud0uPs+qFDHU LznoEUMTo3qzOGANSinNtLvuSn3697OgbWmT/71gI2Y/DyhaSHcRsJ6titATSVTX5VjF NQj0Hrrm5kk44kSVbCjj220nlMyQQitoZwuPLqB8NH9Xlqc9vNM5C92T6JPqzQUocvw+ sHnCt5X+hesMXYS0qftoo5Jo5CBiVJCJvyeqmLNZDffXbx1GAatKSZuMnT/xTC+OORBm RpzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2jrxBsPfqG0IXjAWt4cDWTr1WP+L+8iOpQQBM/Q2kKofBIH9EvSSldTTQ6BzsBE/mMdnW5Zgu7D0ELjQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.72.7 with SMTP id v7mr2214721oia.175.1490763019755; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.146.74 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:50:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo5FQHFBgiNnn6g3Qx1Cby6JUKS533LxWe=cKneeDBD9gQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113db20c3ca83e054bd75025"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/5ezENQmi8dHLXrS2jtLsuGqQMro>
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:50:22 -0000

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.

This document describes a touchless (autoconfiguring) implementation of
IS-IS.  I don't have any security comments, but I have some other comments.

They use the term "Double-Duplication". I don't know what that is. I think
they mean "both the system ID and router fingerprint are duplicated". To me
"double duplicate" would be that there were 3 or more systems with the same
information.

The terminology "NET" and "NSAP" have always been very confusing to most
IETF'ers (including me!). Might it be possible to stop using those terms?
Of course, it's not fair to pick on this document to start doing that. In
the early days of IS-IS, some implementations decided that NET should be
the NSAP minus the last byte. Others thought it should be a full size NSAP,
but with the last byte 0. The formal ISO definition in CLNP did not clarify
this sort of thing, at least to me. Anyway, is there an IETF IS-IS document
that explains what NET and NSAPs are, as opposed to saying (as in this
document) that "an NET is a type of NSAP", which I find very confusing.

In section 3.4.2, it says " Routers operating in auto-configuration mode
MUST NOT form adjacencies with routers which are NOT operating in
auto-configuration
mode. "

Why is that? I'd think it would be easier to deploy if you could gradually
introduce autoconfiguring routers in with existing implementations that
don't know about the A bit. Are you concerned about an actual area 0?

Other than those (mostly) editorial comments, which are only suggestions
anyway, this is ready for publication. I haven't been following IS-IS
recently, and I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been totally
autoconfiguring implementations up until now.

Radia