Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-03

Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@oracle.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 8EDC7129479 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:20:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-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 4m01CRBPSoRh for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:20:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (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 A05071293F2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:20:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v0B5K2Ro003561 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:20:02 GMT
Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0B5K2vT012002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:20:02 GMT
Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0B5K0nn018195; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:20:00 GMT
Received: from [192.168.0.251] (/97.122.70.164) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:20:00 -0800
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <92774159-d56b-cc7f-b5cd-b8e17d038475@oracle.com> <10ed6c45-a8a7-e62e-78fb-62631442f4b9@oracle.com> <CAF4+nEGv95DatWkjrFnh9H9qhwtc0fz+OOs-TqZhxaLeiGovyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4a04ae5b-f30c-303e-e035-aa3819c1f691@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:22:40 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGv95DatWkjrFnh9H9qhwtc0fz+OOs-TqZhxaLeiGovyw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/RXk3icaqTrySA2Ouc6EhC1RhKFg>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis.all@tools.ietf.org, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:20:05 -0000

On 01/10/17 06:03 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
>
> Thanks for your comments. See below.
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com> wrote:
>> 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 draft updates the Appointed Forwarders mechanism (RFC 6439);
>> which supports multiple TRILL switches that handle native traffic
>> to and from end stations on a single link.
>>
>> The security considerations section does exist and states that this
>> update does not change the security properties of the TRILL base
>> protocol.  The section goes on to state that the Port-Shutdown message
>> SHOULD be secured through the Tunnel Channel protocol (which is in draft
>> state).  Was this intended to be a normative reference?
> That reference is out of date. draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel has
> issued as RFC 7978. That should be updated and I agree that this
> should be a normative reference.

Thanks.

>>                                                                                            The section quickly
>> finishes with a reference to Authentication TLVs as a way to secure E-LICS
>> FS-LSPs traffic.  I'm not a TRILL expert and therefore find it difficult to
>> distinguish between the usage of Tunnel Channels and Authentication TLVs for
>> securing Port Shutdown messaging.  Could you please clarify?
> "Channel Tunnel", although left in the draft name for convenience, was
> basically changed to RBridge Header Extension. This is a way to add a
> layer of header to RBridge Channel messages (specified in RFC 7178) to
> secure their content. The Authentication TLV is an IS-IS TLV and
> including that TLV in an IS-IS PDU can be used to secure the content
> of the PDU. Some text can be added to clarify this.

Ah, I see.  Yes, clarifying text would be helpful for the nascent reader.

>> General comments:
>>
>> None.
>>
>> Editorial comments:
>>
>> s/the need to "inhibition"/the need for "inhibition"/
>> s/forarding/forwarding/
>> s/two optimization/two optimizations/
>> s/messages are build/messages are built/
> Thanks for spotting those. We'll fix them.

No problem.

Regards,

Shawn.
--