Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Frank,

See inline [Dhruv2].

<snip>
Comment:
One side effect from the misbehaviors of trusted LSR I would suggest you to consider:
If the LSR includes the new defined subobjects with right AS-ID/IGP area id but still using the already existed Types, the legacy nodes will process its content wrongly, and vice versa. In this condition, the length filed checking is sometimes useful although not always;

​[Dhruv]: The already existing types are - http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-25
- There is no way to include IGP area with existing types
- There exist 2-Byte AS number type, RFC3209 say the length of sub-object is fixed to 4 when Type is AS (32), this draft says the length is fixed 8 for the new subobject type for 4-Byte AS number. The fixed length takes care of it? Do you see a need to add any other text?​

[Frank]: In theory, there is possibility for the error handling condition that I mentioned. So, I suggest you to consider using the length field checking as a supplementary tool to avoid it.

[Dhruv2]: The fixed length check for existing sub-object type is already in place via RFC3209. So this error handling you mention is already in place.

Question:
For the inter-domain scenarios, is it possible that there is not authentication and data protection mechanisms between the two boundary nodes? Furthermore, if the connection between these two nodes are not hop-by-hop, how to guarantee the data integrity and mutual trust?

​[Dhruv]: This analysis is done at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5920#section-8
Chairs, would you like to add anything else? ​

[Frank]: agree with your observations. Do you need to add some reference for this content in the security considerations section of your draft?

[Dhruv2]: Ack

<snip>

The working copy diff is attached for reference (includes IANA, Gen-ART, Sec-Dir reviews).

Regards,
Dhruv​