Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the review.

Off-topic of the draft, I think, you say...

> RFC 3473 is GMPLS signalling with RSVP-TE. RSVP has hop-by-hop integrity 
> protection
> that is often used in real-world deployments; no privacy is assumed in the 
> signalling. However,
> RSVP-TE introduces non-hop-by-hop notifications that are adopted by 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-
> gmpls-ether-svcs. Unlike the rest of RSVP-TE, those notifications have no 
> integrity protection
> unless that operators run the protocol under a security service like IPsec

I am not sure why you make this assertion.
The GMPLS Notification message is open to all of the security features 
available in RSVP-TE.

It is true that Notification messages can be sent using "non-adjacent 
signaling" which would require the existence of security peerings between 
non-adjacent nodes. This can be achieved by group keying, but peer keying 
need not be so arduous in most use cases.

But an alternative mechanism for delivery of Notification messages is 
defined in RFC3473 where the messages are forwarded hop-by-hop within 
RSVP-TE. This enables the use of the normal RSVP-TE security model.

Cheers,
Adrian