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

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Are you updating the draft or does Kathleen have to put a Discuss in?

Thanks,
Alia

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> thanks - the IESG generally begins reading drafts for the telechat about
> now - a week in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Deepak Kumar (dekumar) <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Alia,
>>
>> I will be able to take care of all comments  over weekend.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Deepak
>>
>> From: Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM
>> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: dekumar <[e-mail]>, "
>> [e-mail]" <
>> [e-mail]>, Tissa Senevirathne <
>> [e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, Yoav Nir <
>> [e-mail]>, secdir <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
>>
>> Hi Deepak,
>>
>> Are you planning on publishing an updated draft today?
>> I'd like to move the draft ahead to IESG Evaluation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alia
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> HI Deepak,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> I've added Tissa to the cc list above. I believe that for now he wants
>>> to be listed with "Consultant" as his affiliation and with email
>>> address <[e-mail]>.
>>>
>>> The IETF LC ends the 13th, in a few days. I suggest that you update
>>> the contact info for Tissa, spell out OAM, and update the
>>> MODULE-IDENTITY, since those don't seem like they would be
>>> controversial. For any changes to the Security Considerations text, I
>>> suggest you post proposed text in this thread before editing it in.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald (Shepherd)
>>> =============================
>>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>  [e-mail]
>>>
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Deepak
>>> >
>>> > On 8/8/15, 2:18 PM, "Yoav Nir" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Hi.
>>> >>
>>> >>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
>>> >>info.
>>> >>
>>> >>Yoav
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>