Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-cdni-logging.15

"Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com> Wed, 04 March 2015 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <kwiereng@cisco.com>
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 398601A1A9F; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:40:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 zDxdLB3uA50g; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B5F1A1A4E; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:40:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1718; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425465608; x=1426675208; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=rc1+4+IraZiKjI5vn9jNr5BgUNFbGDrsi4tYBequOoA=; b=TCbkRZLEVqc/wzDbwScihwSHItKrOxgxnuIiohkHyu5UtZa0/t1U11// 8hWJiusemJbYtl8iWEy/e5sCyW0Uq8yOWAdiCE+wF2oiewwi7383nTxHJ zPO8cwWk+mID5DEBXZ7nfm1cdyevqqPb3JnUlUNCRmgT9PekCdqHQFQAZ o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DJBwBd4PZU/5xdJa1agwKBML5liCICgSNNAQEBAQEBfIQQAQEEcgcQAgEIDjgyJQIEDog01xIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXixKEFSYzB4MXgRQBBI9/h1GBe4EaEYMUi2mDQCODboF6OX8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,687,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="400765494"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2015 10:40:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t24Ae5qE007992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:40:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.223]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 04:40:04 -0600
From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com>
To: Daryl Malas <D.Malas@cablelabs.com>
Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-cdni-logging.15
Thread-Index: AQHQR6bsatwFQJOdLkuG1v9BlCIAFZzzy/wAgAG5RQCAFx8pAA==
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:40:04 +0000
Message-ID: <07492AC0-54CE-4C57-8342-91A8C9597678@cisco.com>
References: <493249E6-FD3B-46F3-AA3E-79ED26B594E1@cisco.com> <FCE1519E-49D5-45DE-AE71-8A68E2A52152@cisco.com> <D109193F.2A432%d.malas@cablelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <D109193F.2A432%d.malas@cablelabs.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.84.252]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <46164A91CF10AA4B8245E7293F17532E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/6_hpUAiLq2L7rPrb4D_Q9GpZJcs>
Cc: "draft-ietf-cdni-logging.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cdni-logging.all@tools.ietf.org>, "Francois Le Faucheur \(flefauch\)" <flefauch@cisco.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-cdni-logging.15
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:40:08 -0000

Hi Daryl,

Apologies for my late reply, I completed missed your e-mail and Francois’ reply propelled it back to the top of my inbox.


>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Detailed comments:
>>> 
>>> * Introduction and Figure 1: What is not clear to me from the text is
>>> whether there is any functional difference between an uCDN and an
>>> dCDN,or that they just happen to be in a hierarchical relation to each
>>> other.  I could also find no reference to that in RFC7336. The fact that
>>> in Figure 1 dCDN-2 is not also labeled as uCDN-2 led me to believe that
>>> there is a functional difference. However from the text it appears that
>>> any two DCNs can be in an u-d relation to each other. Please clarify.
> 
> In Figure 1 of RFC 7336, you will notice the interfaces are indicated as
> bi-directional.  I believe the spirit of this is to provide a hierarchal
> perspective.  In any case, can you please clarify your ³security² related
> concerns relative to this scenario?  So far, you have only indicated a
> question of whether a downstream CDN can also be an upstream CDN.  What is
> your related security question if the function changes relative to
> exchanges via the logging interfaces?  If this is a terminology question,
> I think it should have been addressed with regards to 7336.
> 
> To be clear, I¹m just asking for more clarity for the authors to properly
> address this question.

On my side there was no security related concern to it. I was just reading through the text and was unclear on this. To me there was a difference in what the text suggested and what the figure looked like, if that is clarified I am happy ;-)

Klaas