Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05

Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Thu, 24 April 2014 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.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 0ED141A03BA for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 GCfn7kZPqL1X for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687301A037A for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so2554202iec.29 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=vParEr0ircA0QdhZ5FaFF4L3ZzTo4IpPT+4hrqMyPeo=; b=JXnzjZe0hJZr4K+7phihiTo/2CZkAa1xtlJlaQsQneZCcRhNWinMXFanapGy5liEeZ GL4nHbX+JMRyjEe6P39V+Llgm2zrZAEIWliwiQ3a+9+tns/14JhYRKBzGTmAI2y5JOTf WAsCtgGn2CzeEXKLjs5S8HIcw33CXREGYH6H8yiGRy1zwIa1PdDB73cjDzzEpe4FevtA 9A/3okIGg8LxfKTk7KJsThBX6uDjG5TO2lredtqfVQ9bDpE9Vr0qTcWXV+JREjCUv4kK SYkhHXeVqs6DLQ84+Pwarw+p7dm/C3MgjXFC/rNTaNqpDUtMNrTzQLyahI4Gf39aO30R a7Ng==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.109.130 with SMTP id hs2mr4430759igb.29.1398352947186; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.95.208 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534ff35a.63f2440a.2a54.101f@mx.google.com>
References: <534D9EF6.4060106@bbn.com> <534ea310.ea42420a.3358.1b44@mx.google.com> <534FDD4E.10708@bbn.com> <534ff35a.63f2440a.2a54.101f@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:22:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH==cJzHMFK7p8BTcbg_6UNdWYARbv8KnQMmbhd9qDGojpuSKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, "zhliu@gsta.com" <zhliu@gsta.com>, "chen.ran@zte.com.cn" <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>, "dcai@cisco.com" <dcai@cisco.com>, "ssalam@cisco.com" <ssalam@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "giheron@cisco.com" <giheron@cisco.com>, "nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111bc9ab012c404f7cb6a7e
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/91GmfX-IY4TTS26M4qv0JW3sJb4
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05
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: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:22:38 -0000

Hi Stephen,
We upload the new version. The URL:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-06
Please check if you are OK with this version. Thank you for detail review.

Regards
Lizhong


On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi Stephen,
>
> See my reply inline below. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Lizhong
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Kent [mailto:kent@bbn.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kent@bbn.com');>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:55 PM
> *To:* Lizhong Jin; 'secdir'; zhliu@gsta.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','zhliu@gsta.com');>;
> chen.ran@zte.com.cn <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chen.ran@zte.com.cn');>;
> dcai@cisco.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dcai@cisco.com');>;
> ssalam@cisco.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ssalam@cisco.com');>;
> 'Adrian Farrel'; giheron@cisco.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','giheron@cisco.com');>;
> nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: SECDIR review of
> draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05
>
>
>
> Lizhong,
>
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thank you for the detail review. See my reply inline below.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Lizhong
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Kent [mailto:kent@bbn.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:05 AM
> *To:* secdir; zhliu@gsta.com; lizho.jin@gmail.com; chen.ran@zte.com.cn;
> dcai@cisco.com; ssalam@cisco.com; Adrian Farrel; giheron@cisco.com;
> nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
> *Subject:* SECDIR review of
> draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-05
>
>
>
> I 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 is a very brief document, just 12 pages. The Abstract for this
> document, n its entirety, says: “In many existing Virtual Private LAN
> Service (VPLS) deployments based on RFC 4762, inter-domain connectivity has
> been deployed without node redundancy, or with node redundancy in a single
> domain. This document describes a solution for inter-domain VPLS based on
> RFC 4762 with node and link redundancy in both domains.”
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, this confusing wording is typical of the writing in several
> areas of this document. The RFC Editor will need to work closely with the
> authors to make this document easier to read. Also, there are several
> instances of acronyms used without expansion (e.g., ASBR), making reading
> even harder.
>
> [Lizhong] I try to rephrase the abstract below to make it more clear. I
> will check again for the acronyms in detail. BTW, the ASBR has been
> expanded in section 3 line 193.
>
> The first use of ASBR is before then, I believe.
>
> [Lizhong] I see the first use of ASBR now. Will fix it.
>
>
>
>  In many existing RFC 4762 based Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
> inter-domain deployments, the pseudowire (PW) connectivity has been
> deployed without node redundancy, or with node redundancy only in a single
> domain. That will take high risk of service interruption, since at least
> one domain will not have PW node redundancy.  This document describes a
> inter-domain VPLS solution which could provide PW node redundancy in both
> domains.
>
> I think it would be clearer to say:
>
> In many existing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) inter-domain
> deployments (based on RFC 4762), pseudowire (PW) connectivity offers no
> node redundancy, or offers node redundancy only with a single domain. This
> deployment approach incurs a high risk of service interruption, since at
> least one domain will not offer PW node redundancy. This document describes
> an inter-domain VPLS solution that provides PW node redundancy across
> domains.
> [Lizhong] accepted, thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> I like the fact that the document includes a “Motivation” section. It
> provided a good description of why a new approach to achieving redundancy
> in the VPLS context is needed.
>
>
>
> Section 5 ends with a curious statement:
>
>
>
> There are two PW redundancy modes defined in [RFC6870]:
>
> Independent mode and Master/Slave mode.  For the inter-
>
> domain four-PW scenario, it is required for PEs to ensure
>
> that the same mode is supported on the two ICCP peers in
>
> the same RG.  One method to ensure mode consistency is by
>
> manual operation.  Other methods are also possible and are
>
> out of the scope of this document.
>
>
>
> This says that two ASes have to ensure that both employ the same
> redundancy mode choice, notes that they can verify this manually, and that
> says there are other options to meet this requirement, but provides no
> description of the other options.  Not very useful.
>
>  [Lizhong] I think the text is OK. If you insist, I could remove.
>
> the text is not OK, because its states that there are multiple ways to
> ensure consistency, but  identifies only one.
> [Lizhong] hope you are OK with Adrian’s proposal.
>
>
>
> ...
>
> Section 5.3 describes switchover operation in the more complex four PW
> cases. It contains some RFC 2119 key words, but there are several instances
> of lowercase “should”. Is this intentional?
>
>  [Lizhong] I will check again, some is intentional, but some is not.
>
> If you are defining rules for how to achieve switchover, use of
> non-normative text is not
> of much value.
>
>  The Security Considerations section is brief, only 4 short paragraphs.
> It cites the Security Considerations sections of RFCs 4762 and 6870, plus
> the I-D (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) that forms the basis of part of the solution
> described here.
>
>
>
> RFC 4762 also contains a brief Security Considerations section, referring
> the reader to RFC 4111, the PPVPN Security Framework. That document
> discusses security in detail, although most of the discussion does not
> appear to be directly applicable to the redundancy mechanisms of this
> document.
>
>
>
> RFC 6870 is directly relevant. It contains a two-sentence Security
> Considerations section (almost a record for brevity?) with a lowercase
> “must” for emphasis? This section refers to RFC 4447, which contains a
> meaningful SC section (finally). That document mandates use of the TCP/MD5
> option for LDP. This is almost consistent with the second paragraph of the
> SC section in this document (which weakens this to a MAY), but not with the
> third paragraph (which seems to call for TCP-AO).
>
>  [Lizhong] RFC6870 SC is only valid for PW control plane. The second,
> third and fourth paragraph is described for ICCP control plane. I will make
> that clear in the text.
>
> OK.
>
>  ...
>
>
>
> [Lizhong] thank you for the comments. I tend to remove the conflict parts
> with [I-D.ietf-pwe3-iccp], and only describe the new security
> considerations. Please help to review the following text:
>
> Besides the security properties of [I-D.ietf-pwe3-iccp] for ICCP control
> plane, [RFC4762] and [RFC6870] for PW control plane, this document will
> have additional security consideration for ICCP control plane.
>
>
>
> In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs. The
> two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a well managed and highly
> monitored network. This should be ensured by the operator.
>
>
>
>