Re: [secdir] SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06

"Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <> Mon, 10 August 2015 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B941A8759; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VcTK1JSn5q_E; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211F91A8762; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3195; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439172441; x=1440382041; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nIo4JSgMoMEoz5+TOMZ4R2Gg8TmuklbovQ2bWRJPuDg=; b=dOSxl6s/SATBFBwvehJspdbkoXoSofHLm6Gv/nymYbR0ZBwuiiirE9Ko eEAU2sZW9XDBwqhA5KP5Bw7f5cMQRUXUgIS/3aumvh6eIHmIlDXk1LxEf 2Oa29tvhuFNVMumrPkaquT4nBiLPBmaoU7dZ3HNPzOlCx/ShTQO2LMk49 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,641,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="19112902"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2015 02:07:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7A27J9O006040 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:07:19 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:07:18 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:07:18 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:07:18 -0500
From: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <>
To: Yoav Nir <>, secdir <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:07:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:01:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:07:22 -0000

Hi Yoav,

Thanks for review and comments. Please advise if we need to fix the nits
and comments and upload new version as I am not sure about procedure of
fixing comments during last call.

Tissa has moved out of Cisco and working in another Company, I don¹t have
privy of his new contact so I will contact him to get new contact and
update the document also.


On 8/8/15, 2:18 PM, "Yoav Nir" <> 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.
>TL;DR: The document is ready with nits.
>The document contains a MIB for operations, administration, and
>maintenance (OAM) of TRILL. As is common for such documents, 34 of its 45
>pages is section 7 ("Definition of the TRILL OAM MIB module²). Being an
>expert on neither TRILL nor MIBs I have mostly skipped that section.
>Usually with MIB documents, the security considerations for the protocol
>(several TRILL RFCs in this case) are in the protocol documents, while
>the security considerations for SNMP are in the SNMP document (RFC 3410).
>The MIB document only points data that is sensitive (in terms of privacy
>or information leakage), and data which is dangerous in the sense that
>falsified or modified data could lead to damage.
>In this document the Security Considerations section does a good job of
>explaining that modified data can lead to changes in routing and
>potentially to denial of service. The second paragraph is a little
>hand-wavy for my taste:
>   There are number of management objects defined in this MIB module
>   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-create. Such objects may be
>   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
>What network environment? Why in some but not in others? The third
>paragraph is similar:
>   Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (objects with a MAC-
>   ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
>   vulnerable in some network environments.
>The section concludes with text that looks very familiar from other MIB
>documents, basically saying that you should use SNMPv3 because it has
>protections whereas earlier versions don¹t. It is also important to have
>proper access control rules. One nit is that the section says that the
>cryptographic mechanisms in SNMPv3 provide ³privacy². As of late we tend
>to use that word for the protection of information about humans, not so
>much about link status.
>A few general nits:
> - In most documents that I see, the content of sections 1-4 is in a
>single section.
> - OAM is not expanded before first use.
> - The MODULE-IDENTITY has ³TBD² for ORGANIZATION and authors¹ names in
>CONTACT-INFO. looking at a few recent MIB documents, the working group is
>usually given as ORGANIZATION and its mailing list is given as contact