[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10

Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> Fri, 24 October 2014 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <carl@redhoundsoftware.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 20C6B1A8A9E for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 OeAEOD0hTJMZ for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-f46.google.com (mail-yh0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0EC81A8A9B for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id f10so273444yha.5 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CE8Jkjti+gpsplCxazAc33vNnvdUhfhVZSao1SDsLeo=; b=TMlFI1KsHW6KAepwMRJr5zyiobLZBKN7zZ3UiFblD6e2O9fmHyxCDUK2bYfldqns1J kqFbscYYwv1cmzJrFDG1mXxE4S++rqLK6/NWv0lAIPY+FJsouT8GX/y7Oxhr9xQ7B4hr dU06PXxUI+X3u1xNhmtIBTzneJ/5FyVwmeRk5DISdWpc9SgwZ34aNyTRQ/Kv+Cx72Aw1 twwn6QhsRTPFe1RC81EtY7AyXXqkJLJoC99Znev99KHxRnq8jcSV08CDaLASJHNpOPL5 Ci8DGm1jKWXwSqQLt4pJXWUp8S570lLG+gfNRVFkMpAVvrQMu7ASiDPR4DSgEL3B//zD PUeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkidmuHTAFt8/IFCGJPzbrnFFZJGurNVe/trCeD3t1hg16jYNljD1tmW7CXxVhIrlBC5yat
X-Received: by 10.170.146.133 with SMTP id n127mr5573257ykc.129.1414150286009; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.2] (pool-173-79-132-199.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [173.79.132.199]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z8sm3890357qaj.43.2014.10.24.04.31.23 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:31:20 -0400
From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
To: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D06FB0C8.253DE%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/AxqmyJ-QHIWbOJK59aURAv1BYdI
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-10
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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:31:29 -0000

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.


This document describes a MIB that "describes managed objects for modeling
of Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for
communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs”.

I am not a MIB guy and did not review the definitions.  The security
considerations section mostly addresses SNMP related considerations in
general via references to other specs.  This seems fine.  The only minor
nit here is the following:

	Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the
SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), including full support for
authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
[RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826].

RFC3410 only defines support for use of CBC-DES.  If support for AES is
intended instead of DES, that should be noted more strongly here.  The
requirement for "full support" of RFC3414 could be misinterpreted.