Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

"Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com> Fri, 16 February 2018 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@hyperthought.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADE312D87E for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:08:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 986F4pb8nFCG for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp106.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp106.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8CA912751F for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C301254C4; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:08:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from app34.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp6.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AEEAC556E; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:08:37 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: scott@hyperthought.com
Received: from app34.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:08:37 -0500
Received: from hyperthought.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app34.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE66A0044; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:08:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: scott@hyperthought.com, from: scott@hyperthought.com) with HTTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:08:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Auth-ID: scott@hyperthought.com
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:08:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com>
To: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-all@tools.ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Type: plain
In-Reply-To: <1518789986.277131687@apps.rackspace.com>
References: <1518789986.277131687@apps.rackspace.com>
Message-ID: <1518790117.64868211@apps.rackspace.com>
X-Mailer: webmail/12.11.1-RC
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/KQIhrz-bE0VSEzbX4YHvYpy4Mas>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Feb 2018 14:08:44 -0000

Resending due to bounce from draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-all@ietf.org


On Friday, February 16, 2018 6:06am, "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com>; said:

> 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 Ready with issues.
> 
> From the last line of the abstract, this draft updates RFC 4761 by defining new
> flags in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.
> 
> I'm not expert in routing protocols, so I can't say for sure that the one minor
> issue I'm calling out is the only one. The security considerations section is very
> brief, saying only
> 
>    This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
>    inherent in the existing [RFC4271].
> 
> RFC4271 is the BGP4 RFC. I agree that those security considerations apply, but as
> noted in the abstract, this draft updates RFC4761, and since that document calls
> out additional security considerations, don't those also apply here? Shouldn't
> this document's security considerations also reference RFC4761?
> 
> --Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>