Re: [secdir] [i2rs] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Mon, 26 February 2018 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0EBD128C0A; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:12:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rJczWm8fPpB3; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E83BF126BF7; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w21so8720776plp.11; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:12:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7wNePP6U9AyJG7nLu59rXN9Del3Cd+STRmOA/t3WUWw=; b=QgPVCrCP117W2HldvjEDyxJ8oG2upRzUcyUJ5NSIf1wMVtf3xQhlYBuQH0ZSM8ZcRV oNKPbY1Gygb9iWbAbT2z7KmJwyVRhEY+/1uiX5WVyEZsqHQV3uHyJuTH4gIt+bUaO4gc vBibM4bb0qSht/yFNks0jvoIfLMRMLliAmL/aVgKTZjD6niMfuMaxnPF5Nex7iSJDLj0 swGvh+452Zl1jw1LSI/L45LArr5sEXez3r2B13Vg1sQUeMXl78yTTAfM9ws2FHSRuTzI Pqg/wt8ZEFA9TP7gycfEOQ3kLmodhJ3G0ZW3MOEGhP4YwpUzgeINeqdwSOSWxHI7f5IQ mb1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7wNePP6U9AyJG7nLu59rXN9Del3Cd+STRmOA/t3WUWw=; b=Pni9ngay+vS67+OXun5dVLDe58xoqV3KmCTXgfwVJvbdUGXHF+RQ0G9GR9m2wovvJ/ GdHxnF3BQB4BytZ3WPMniRgtQ2e3Uo0ywNQBHJj0ZQyaziE8Ke6FcrZcnncm8WTmlaA2 2PdGATL4Ifn1OMEEYN9wuA0T3DwmZCU59C1geZm0SRhFfxdmRXxdm0FWTfTe5nxM0/YS Wk3W/58SiAddPe8H+CDQVlgZ3Gjp7K0jeLqQr6WcNJisma6TB6PZGiXvItxZa5CQYpwO TMR0lOajKl2QVdEp7lYGGF0KsscMJTs7h8Q0NfPjB/iY870X4TwsdRpqjomWc8WY7AyY tqng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAnKG2s7hMpx2S/MH8RkTdE6opdc/YuTE3mijuQqua2ma1Z2TT8 plDn5B8i6nKFjv5nweyAexQmjEFR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226TalvvcZ0kBVKx67j1/9Q0mCQarR7xvqbuqDRxxdeVSkOKhDgqDgIoFON07Q/biNRh6TPUrA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:2de4:: with SMTP id p91-v6mr9650957plb.405.1519625548984; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4700:1280:f95b:566c:c56e:e915? ([2601:647:4700:1280:f95b:566c:c56e:e915]) by with ESMTPSA id w4sm15242335pfb.125.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:12:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ABD45F25-6C24-42D7-9E52-3D1015B13160"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 22:18:14 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Paul Wouters <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [i2rs] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 06:12:32 -0000

> On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Paul Wouters <>; wrote:
> Reviewer: Paul Wouters
> Review result: Has Issues
> 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.
> The summary of the review is Has Issues.
> This Informational draft specifies an information model for routing information
> bases (RIBs) , and hints at how a read/write API would look like. I think the
> document should be improved to clarify this API beyond a simple mention of SSH
> and TLS in its own section, outside of the Security Consideration section. For
> example, if this is TLS, what is used? Something restful? xml? json? What would
> the URI be? And for ssh, what kind of access would be given? How is this
> restricted to the RIB API ?

When I was reviewing the draft, I was wondering if the document needs a Security Considerations section. I would say that the information model should describe the routing information. I do not think it should specify it. It is more the data model (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model) that defines or specifies the model, and should have security considerations documented.

Suggest /specifies/describes/g

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list

Mahesh Jethanandani