Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 12 November 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 1BA5621F878C; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:39:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTGklmQsPuLc; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [93.186.182.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AF021F878B; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [186.134.15.187] (helo=[192.168.123.122]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1TXyun-0001kb-Bb; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:39:21 +0100
Message-ID: <50A14225.4000609@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:38:29 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kathleen.moriarty@emc.com
References: <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F2403AAA236@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F2403AAA236@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:09:14 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04
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, 12 Nov 2012 18:39:30 -0000

Hi, Kathleen,

My apologies for the delay in my response - it seems that I had not seen
this email! Please find my comments in-line...

On 07/12/2012 11:01 AM, kathleen.moriarty@emc.com wrote:
> Review Summary:
> The draft is mostly ready (the draft introduces new requirements to
> protect against specific attack vectors and addresses them well), but I
> would recommend some stronger language in the Security Considerations
> section in the following areas:
>  
> In the start of the security considerations section, it says that
> ‘advice’ is given to correct the problems.  Reading through the draft
> this updates and this draft, would saying ‘new requirements’ or
> ‘additional requirements’ be better?  

How about "it introduces requirements for RA-Guard implementations"?

(i.e., RFC 6105 was infrmational, and didn't include any formal
requirements).




> Also, to be compliant with this BCP, shouldn’t the security
> considerations section just require compliance with RFC5722?  

It woudld e inappropriate: RA-Guard is implemented at the layer-2
devices connecting the nodes to be protected, while the requirement to
implement RFC5722 would aim at *those* nodes we want to protect.

Put another way, there's nothing an RA-Guard implementer can do to
force/push compliance with RFC5722 by other nodes.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492