Re: [secdir] Sector Review: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Mon, 05 January 2015 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAB61A879C; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:43:36 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 uNmeIKp-3BlI; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0766.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:766]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65F8D1A87A8; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLUPR05MB564.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.202.150) by BLUPR05MB056.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.210.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:58 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.202.141) by BLUPR05MB564.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.202.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:58 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.202.141]) by BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.202.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:58 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Sector Review: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09
Thread-Index: AQHQJ3SMyWjtcXq4JUqwQi9EiIdlY5yx3hXw
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR05MB56263FED888E98674F8974DC7580@BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <4E0F5009-4811-4FFE-AA26-ECFAC2398101@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E0F5009-4811-4FFE-AA26-ECFAC2398101@ogud.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jdrake@juniper.net;
x-dmarcaction: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(3005003); SRVR:BLUPR05MB564; UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0447DB1C71
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(19300405004)(31966008)(101416001)(62966003)(19625215002)(76576001)(87936001)(4396001)(16236675004)(102836002)(77096005)(2656002)(68736005)(15975445007)(2900100001)(2950100001)(54356999)(77156002)(76176999)(92566001)(86362001)(21056001)(40100003)(105586002)(50986999)(97736003)(33656002)(106116001)(106356001)(107046002)(99396003)(230783001)(122556002)(99286002)(120916001)(46102003)(19580395003)(74316001)(19580405001)(20776003)(64706001)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB564; H:BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BLUPR05MB56263FED888E98674F8974DC7580BLUPR05MB562namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jan 2015 18:42:57.9072 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB564
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB056;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TLAa5jMWdCRFXyDkyvBFT01BuyU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:07:31 -0800
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Sector Review: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:43:36 -0000

Olafur,

Link delay is propagation delay and 1 microsecond corresponds to a link with a length of .3 KM.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olafur Gudmundsson
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 11:44 AM
To: ietf
Cc: secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Sector Review: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09

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 is Ready with nits.

The document contains no issues from a security perspective as it is only creating LSA’s for new types of route selection metrics,
time instead of network hops.

The Nit that I have is the document in introduction says time is important and the ability to select faster path has high
economical gain.
The base time measurement unit in the new LSA’s is MICRO seconds, there is no justification in the document that
says 1 micro second is granular enough for links of the near future (over 100 Gbits+).

Olafur