[secdir] draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07 security review

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Thu, 04 August 2016 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.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 33DDD12DC9D for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 03:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 9jq1GP1Qmym2 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 03:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8730512DC64 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 03:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id w127so165864471vkh.2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 03:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FmV98zh2loyVJ2VzFo42oNUN4B5zhcUp67R5CpWAF0U=; b=lB0xt8Py1hI18wYu8+mzvjW5fF4dTda8O9/LNq+B8i6PzmaTDCJous9DNYUasdbt5v JG0UrrIteKNBXTKsFx7Z0UU4iS087UXh4m3EwMIBmzpbvOlST3lejG0OBrDIZTUYrkXT NFdTD9p7tY5Oju3hnkA5trMBN/7bqldMp5zt+T4aGvoS0q1hBXvCiGLmeTvZd+oMGkCJ lQNs2eJZIU4RRhYhKz42v1Al0Ehn8nfY/fSiubwHqlvY80XjDBkZEpGpB/j+5wID7X0U pOfokO/ihveZjFeaydmSCfxwm/O2u7u6Sqsp+LzYM5zzIAhd2SN2oaM/bBXprZg5hcjN h74Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FmV98zh2loyVJ2VzFo42oNUN4B5zhcUp67R5CpWAF0U=; b=BiwF+TfwxK64qlUpZ49ai/JQ5bpIRtutfwcYjQeDtEpTqYZxluu4pofXZ5a63Ox1kJ WUK5updcqa72h7BM7zL47bs45knqxB2K5yetgjdwD3d58FgBNa0SWDT80TNTgrSvBtKL xJB21IAywlNzafxaRTf906Ps1UCnvWP8dcu6M4l3LF31HHOuOl+BKmyclxe4ekoss65F 6U6PnBOVxr2uNpu0VNuPOd6azxzf/3L0Nux2HZWB1rMF/ySxMz4pkoOrBVCqusIRZrnY MqLI0z3KJiFOJztLPRYEqFEsgSfTYSLTK9wyMLMj4qChEusX8RIiRUaGZacJYvNr2EZG tCtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutnmlT39ViUbFUoTG+6aapGsCflpBkCPkzysEfI2Qe4iA+ZKq2DLWUX1B5PlFRVOdkaodnJpS4mBNjh6gvg
X-Received: by 10.31.203.196 with SMTP id b187mr1478193vkg.4.1470307511492; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 03:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.168.142 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 03:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:45:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSG533PFFjkX4kbp=81gqs+3nN1DLrT797PsRVGsERitQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TMBWbfxcWPO-D_fc02VOKQSEpHc>
Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07 security review
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: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:45:14 -0000

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.

Status: ready with nits.

The document claims to introduce no new security exposure, but it
seems to me that it is designed to ensure routing occurs correctly in
situations where it previously didn't - this may result in unexpected
exposure of networks that previously were unreachable.

I think this is a nit, because clearly such networks were poorly
designed in the first place, but perhaps a mention should be made?