Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 15 March 2018 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 289111250B8; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 1JTxOEoxMBSl; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0E75124F57; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g7-v6so1200590itf.1; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+lfk7FqAQ73/KiP8fbrf4h7FGx/VW/eE8Rw55Eyw0X8=; b=n0T9pRkh4Xsb/QpwjSCuj17mWTNewJvpxqF353xKHqjhr0VwDc8n3Y9DUScABgADyB Z13fZO/LzTWY386Q79yx7/hRp/cZvgZG/luhmhvFvrJsFnB/lSM9QhAItQITtE11vhmI 5SUCBPhmtOzUZD2jRjTJ/wWSYnumxZUHNxEuFBZXB5gRTG/U5TIDOpkWg+L8iKlbASP3 D3HER9mwatCkgHEJQiVHdhjUKY29PYP5AjS66DUNaSg8KvDHJIK7hbIgeq3RPUUXGgYd RAvi47FcC3Jkckx4vTetGOG85hlGiValzk14WGT5eTQqMaq8aLtLZLQn7JSN3u5Ik8uM y6JQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+lfk7FqAQ73/KiP8fbrf4h7FGx/VW/eE8Rw55Eyw0X8=; b=hsxVC5NcCiGirDtH9zaF/dEJrR4PV+tyXXyrkj0fvLszCNUVPvymG1C9OMdNiIK3oW gOeiSR12LmDUxtyN+DGdew5BXmvklMEBk1+Nhn/lDDGBdwyymx1umToQCopDsNoQSLj6 dZw9mH6nukbjV+vT9vNlgrDDblpJykt+WvG9rKIglc8/hyN8W2p3Q3/+H3sPSQ7uSm9+ 4ddI5uVnDJfotMqojP13rULLi3H/K35sgA0Hc5Vv/ROLEiVYLtEoE1pyeokBDdYiMj+X iboY93z+Zar61DGHQLWgjJ/7Xv+9Bw+JgOSHKNPBoDRUwWqrPuZeSAEhzR21jJimTYMg H0Lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7G4x7535VtizjjtcQ0GUuuRb3NShsfSHKSOWO4dPtC79tvodz02 WKy3dmHOEvEBCqFXd/RH7k6DBQ1wOrkbY+E9Y/M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtWZPbT7Io8N427Kzc3fEpBoOrRc6AdAnQh98mR8Fud1hfods9FK5MTQEqpUYsUbA23deNI0N8LnTXztq62ag0=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:108c:: with SMTP id 134-v6mr4139508ity.94.1521077464188; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7AAFE7004@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F6E1D1@marathon> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F70C6B@marathon> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7AAFE7004@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:30:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGJByC=+A29y6s6FSn9h9=wZsPiGDJ3+pkpo5C+x_2phQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org>, "Zhangmingui (Martin)" <zhangmingui@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/A_QGbgzvHgxXxRjfIuH6Fv9BIFA>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Mar 2018 01:31:07 -0000

Hi Roman,

A -07 version of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname has been
uploaded. I believe this resolves all of your comments.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Zhangmingui (Martin)
<zhangmingui@huawei.com>; wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> All changes you suggested in item (8) are fair. I've made these changes into the 07 version. Awaiting for uploading.
>
> Thanks,
> Mingui
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roman Danyliw [mailto:rdd@cert.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 12:32 AM
>> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
>>
>> Hi Donald and Mingui!
>>
>> Thanks for the changes in -06.  Any thoughts on item (8)?
>>
>> Roman
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Roman Danyliw
>> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 9:01 PM
>> > To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
>> > draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-
>> > nickname.all@ietf.org
>> > Subject: Secdir review of
>> > draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > (8) There appear to be a few instances of key protocol behavior not
>> > using
>> > RFC2119 language.  I'd suggest:
>> >
>> > Section 3.2.2, Global Distribution Tree, Page 6
>> > (old) Also, this border RBridge needs to advertise the set of local
>> > distribution trees by providing another set of nicknames
>> > (new) Also, this border RBridge MUST advertise the set of local
>> > distribution trees by providing another set of nicknames
>> >
>> > Section 3.2.2, Global Distribution Tree, Page 6
>> > (old) If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root
>> > and a local tree root, it has to acquire both a global tree root
>> > nickname(s) and local tree root nickname(s)
>> > (new) If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root
>> > and a local tree root, it MUST acquire both a global tree root
>> > nickname(s) and local tree root nickname(s)
>> >
>> > Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
>> > (old) Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge needs to announce,
>> > in its area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are
>> > reachable from this border RBridge.
>> > (new) Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge MUST announce, in
>> > its area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are reachable
>> > from this border RBridge.
>> >
>> > Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
>> > (old) Also, a border RBridge needs to announce, in Level 2, the
>> > ownership of all nicknames within its area. From listening to these
>> > Level 2 announcements, border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used
>> by other areas.
>> > (new) Also, a border RBridge MUST announce, in Level 2, the ownership
>> > of all nicknames within its area. From listening to these Level 2
>> > announcements, border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used by other
>> areas.
>> >
>> > Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
>> > (old) To address this issue, border RBridges should make use of the
>> > NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the
>> > inclusive range of nicknames that are available or not for self
>> > allocation by the Level 1 RBridges in that area.
>> > (new) To address this issue, border RBridges SHOULD use the
>> > NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the
>> > inclusive range of nicknames that are available or not for self
>> > allocation by the Level 1 RBridges in that area.
>> >
>> > Section 4.4, Capability Indication, Page 11
>> > (old) If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
>> > APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area will also use the traditional
>> > Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
>> > covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose
>> > OK is 0.
>> > (new) If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
>> > APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area MUST also use the traditional
>> > Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
>> > covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose
>> > OK is 0.
>> >
>> > Section 5, Mix with Aggregated nickname Areas, Page 11
>> > (old) Usage of nickname space must be planed so that nicknames used in
>> > any one unique nickname area and Level 2 are never used in any other
>> > areas which includes unique nickname areas as well as aggregated nickname
>> areas