[secdir] Secdir review (early review) of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@gmail.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 16128130DE0; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 l0UBawk7MNx8; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 8679F130DDD; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id l81-v6so1752464pfg.3; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/IHRqapklx5M3Kom1h3JcsBjZR4dnQPYvXP5vbBFno4=; b=JrB9gpS4AfViUaJjPSQqQZDIdElJGzxiA9UP1v8JNgMvwnK1MAPiFGq4Gei/t3oi84 /W7axmFrGi8yz3ahORpINHfexs78Hv8P1EQ5kjwh9udMikk6jlmwyv3ChfbBcILLy84m 2pZtqKEiMBiDyhR34/2CLtjTiFOWoAwvuGH4t3kfHl+AE2macsW8FxTivyjyE9pOmAgs Woa3B1saTYFJAUQorFrg0b4/Po1yDDjnIFlh1lDTXCR2HXvx+u59O2tto3cfDqDx4nb8 t0BbkBaiTEWdkBkZ3loq/Qm0UCp50BNZFgleM7hBfUjKr6qrhfu3gcZ/8qPwYBZgkrBe w8bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/IHRqapklx5M3Kom1h3JcsBjZR4dnQPYvXP5vbBFno4=; b=rn3l7mN03e3aUWwKcbapE7FPwxPyEzGNoL63eP2mOkY/W3uRCIfb71o9DM5ZOUjUzS Mo7RI9HkBpGJrtRFmT6umynxG10BKqTFgRyr/kD6A1o74bUbfC4+4d8Aibt1MmQ8jnzw aGkTW7OjOFHMudihwhBLN/xBSZ3jH03KE5slI37yJRrtaf7X+P9JfgsqHRkIgjJJ/fRf 0pxW55o28olCdT//lwgfRGQdnDw20uMQUaUji61UP7oxixiOPc5hQq11JSzGy/Sgdo/m P0jl76aipG1H41C0gL8Z1kH3bGvR2zsMNeNqtj+L6FWqmHjn2t++Q+qXeG60dvGQM7TA vEKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJv3RHAOgy1GmhC53CkWAtFrRjPoR6Zi3IsKCIc3poFImC/O+JB Vllqwx0GKvjrg9CbaZ+5GP2umJ62ZOriu0uTrLzMO9XV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5efPfJmqpAENU3W7ylMd/grsycZimfAHy9WZrWvcHDdbBI4NiwU7G/C9PIQgvZsjoR6yaDiLNezzVSi9d1YY7c=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8001:: with SMTP id j1-v6mr1028976pfi.73.1540353692886; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:00:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajj4Y82CwZSNC0pEYimpx4MGfDTfMD_LCzX5-Vnr1foe3vJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b16deb0578f18a6c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TPOTT7erdFFthwsqbL9zWxkevN0>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review (early review) of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Oct 2018 04:01:35 -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.

This document describes "Geneve," a protocol for GEneric NEtwork
Virtualization Encapsulation. The document is written in a clear manner and
with a thorough Security Considerations section. I have just a few
questions/comments:

- Section 3.4: The "MUST ignore" for the reserved bits should presumably
state "SHALL be ignored for this version of the Geneve protocol." - as I
imagine that in a future version, these bits may not be ignored?
- Section 3.5.1: I wonder about the simultaneous requirement that one
option must not affect the parsing or interpretation of another option but
that the sequencing (order) of options may be significant - they seem to be
contradictory since if the sequencing *is* significant, then some option
must be impacted by a previous one's value? From a security perspective, I
also wonder if there could be security consequences of re-ordering options
(and how to tell if someone did re-order - see below)?
- Section 6.2, shouldn't such an Option be defined to reduce the risk of
under-specified or subpar specifications of such integrity mechanisms? Or
also from an interop perspective?

Thanks.
-- Magnus