Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-02

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <> Wed, 06 March 2013 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32E921F8CCA for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:37:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fuTo3J17TUJk for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:37:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9708521F8CD0 for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:37:30 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,795,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="317375250"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2013 16:37:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id r26GbTPR003034 for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:37:29 GMT
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,795,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="9870558"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2013 16:37:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:37:29 +0000
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <>
To: Stephen Kent <>, secdir <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Stewart Bryant <>, Adrian Farrel <>
Thread-Topic: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-02
Thread-Index: AQHOGoDygRfcmtRVNE2Ns5BnbZoekZiY3Bhw
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:37:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D2502C92BGLKXM0002VGREEN_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:24:20 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:37:33 -0000

Please note that this is not a rationale of OLSRv2.

This is a rationale of how metrics were added to OLSRv2, a small subset of the complete OLSRv2 functionality.

There were of course security considerations in the design of OLSRv2, but this is not that document.

Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124<> |

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

From: Stephen Kent []
Sent: 06 March 2013 15:40
To: secdir; Dearlove, Christopher (UK);;;;; Stewart Bryant; Adrian Farrel
Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-02

*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Please see this process<> on how to deal with suspicious emails.
SECDIR review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-02

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 document is targeted as an Informational RFC. It describes itself as "... an historic record of the rationale for, and design considerations behind, how link metrics were included in OLSRv2."

The Security Considerations section says simply "This document does not specify any security considerations." It's been a very long time (many years) since I've encountered that phrase in a candidate RFC. A rationale document itself probably does not entail security considerations, but the omission of any security discussion suggests that security did not play a role in the deign of this routing protocol. Is that true? If so, who thinks this is a good thing?

I looked at the I-D that defines OLSRv2. It contains a two-page Security Considerations section. From my perspective, this document ought to provide background info (rationale) for the security suggestions contained that document.

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.