Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nico,

Thanks for your review and giving us your comments on security section. 
Please review the following changes. 

The current security section reads: 

   This document discusses a number of control plane architectures that
   incorporate knowledge of impairments in optical networks. If such
   architecture is put into use within a network it will by its nature
   contain details of the physical characteristics of an optical
   network. Such information would need to be protected from intentional
   or unintentional disclosure similar to other network information used
   within intra-domain protocols. It is expected that protocol solutions
   work will address any issues on the use of impairment information.

Modified security section reads:

   This document discusses a number of control plane architectures that
   incorporate knowledge of impairments in optical networks. If such
   architecture is put into use within a network it will by its nature
   contain details of the physical characteristics of an optical
   network. Such information would need to be protected from intentional
   or unintentional disclosure similar to other network information used
   within intra-domain protocols. 

   This document does not require changes to the security models within
   GMPLS and associated protocols.  That is, the OSPF-TE, RSVP-TE, and
   PCEP security models could be operated unchanged. However, satisfying 
   the requirements for impairment information dissemination using the existing
   protocols may significantly affect the loading of those protocols.
   This may make the operation of the network more vulnerable to denial-
   of-service attacks or active attacks.  Therefore, additional care maybe 
   required to ensure that the protocols are secure in the impairment-aware
   WSON environment.

   Furthermore, the additional information distributed in order to
   address impairment information represents a disclosure of network 
   capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private. Consideration 
   should be given to securing this information.  For a general discussion 
   on MPLS- and GMPLS-related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security 
   framework [RFC5920].

Please suggest some texts if these are not satisfactory to your need. Thanks. 

Best Regards, 
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Nico Williams [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:05 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07

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 targets the informative (FYI) track and describes a
framework for applying GMPLS protocols to handle information about
link quality (my words) based on "Impairment Aware Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA)".  Given the document's intended status
and the fact that no protocols as such are specified, it would seem
that the sparse security considerations section should suffice, except
that it's not clear whether active attacks are of concern (the
security considerations section concenrs itself mostly with privacy
concerns).  A few words on the potential for active attacks would be
useful, particularly for the non-initiate.

The I-D is not properly formatted (e.g., the abstract is not on the
first page, and plenty of other formatting errors follow).  Assuming
that these errors are corrected and that the security considerations
section is updated as indicated above, I think this I-D should be
ready.

Nico
--